Search available indicators and datasets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the return contents (indicator keys, units, source notes) and the curated source scope, going beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 a single information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and registry scope. The punctuation around the topic list is slightly awkward, but every part contributes meaning and there is no redundant filler.

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 low parameter count, no output schema, and straightforward search behavior, the description covers the essential context: source universe, query semantics, return format, and downstream tool integrations. It does not address pagination or result limits, but these are minor for this tool's simplicity.

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% and the query parameter already has a clear description with examples. The tool description adds value by listing specific searchable topics ('inflation', 'debt', 'unemployment', 'poverty') and clarifying the query's role as a free-text topic search, reinforcing rather than merely repeating the schema.

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 ('Search') and a well-scoped resource ('StatCite's curated indicator registry'), naming explicit sources (World Bank WDI, IMF DataMapper/WEO/Fiscal Monitor) and the ability to discover DBnomics datasets. It also clarifies what the tool returns — indicator keys usable with get_indicator/verify_stat — which helps distinguish it from the generic sibling 'search'.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when looking up indicators by topic before retrieving them via get_indicator or verifying them with verify_stat. It gives concrete example topics and mentions dataset discovery, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with the generic 'search' sibling.

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