Get an economic indicator (with citation)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are official values and include a full citable reference. The schema's strict_source parameter already documents the fallback behavior, so no contradiction or hidden side effect is left unaddressed.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by useful scope examples, return-value detail, and routing guidance. No filler; each sentence contributes to a clear mental model.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, input formats, and when to use it. Remaining details like transform options, fallback semantics, and year filters are fully specified in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's comments about ISO3 codes/plain country names and indicator examples largely restate what the schema already provides, adding no significant parameter-level meaning beyond the structured definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('official values for a common economic indicator'), and a concrete deliverable ('observations plus a full citation'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling search_indicators by telling the agent to start here and route there when the indicator key is unknown.

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 says 'Start here for most questions' and names search_indicators as the alternative when the indicator key is uncertain, giving a clear decision rule. This is strong routing guidance even though it doesn't enumerate every sibling exclusion.

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