Compare an indicator's value across its official sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context about interpretation of differences (methodological, not errors) and graceful error handling for down sources, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is compact and efficient, using 3 sentences to convey purpose, use cases, interpretation, and error handling. It front-loads the key action and avoids redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description still indicates what the user will see ('values side by side, each with its own citation, plus the spread'). It also covers source failures. While it lacks a detailed response format, it is sufficient for a read-only comparison tool.

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 coverage is 100% with meaningful descriptions for each parameter. The description echoes some of this (e.g., example indicator keys, default period) without adding significant new semantics, so it meets the baseline but doesn't elevate it.

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 a specific action ('Fetch one indicator for one country from EVERY official source') and resource (indicator values across official sources), with example sources. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_indicator by emphasizing multi-source comparison side by side.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use scenarios: 'Use when sources disagree, when you need to know WHICH official number to cite, or to check how large the methodological gap is.' This gives clear context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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