Get UNESCO UIS data

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: values are returned raw and untransformed, and oversized queries are rejected with the record count rather than truncated. It stops short of describing pagination or any result-size cap on accepted queries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and filters before the constraints and caveats. Every clause carries information; the only cost is that the raw-records and ILOSTAT disclaimers are stacked into one long sentence, slightly diluting scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a 100%-documented schema, the description supplies the remaining essentials: where codes come from, the 25-indicator ceiling, raw/unaggregated output, and the rejection behavior for broad queries.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, and the description goes beyond it by tying 'indicators' to uis_search_indicators with a max of 25 and 'geo_units' to uis_list_geo_units, plus explaining what include_footnotes yields. It adds cross-tool provenance but no syntax detail for year bounds beyond what the schema already shows.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('statistical records from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics Data API') and immediately scopes it by the three filter axes. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming uis_search_indicators and uis_list_geo_units as the code sources, and by ruling out the ILOSTAT MCP server's data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit prerequisites (codes must come from uis_search_indicators / uis_list_geo_units) and operational guidance ('narrow by geo unit or years' when broad queries are rejected). It does not, however, contrast this tool with the generic 'fetch' and 'search' siblings, so routing between those remains implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.