Trend analysis

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing analytical outputs (e.g., linear trend, CAGR) beyond the structured fields, but does not fully disclose all behavioral traits (e.g., data source, refresh frequency).

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence lists what the tool computes; second sentence provides default configuration. Every sentence is purposeful.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, default behavior, and analytical components. It does not need to repeat output format since an output schema exists.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds default metric and time range context, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes displacement metric evolution for a country, listing specific outputs (yearly series, YoY changes, linear trend, CAGR, anomalous years). This distinguishes it from siblings like country_profile or demographics.

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?

The description implies usage for trend analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like forecast or compare_countries. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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