faostat_definition_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait — that the output is an input to two other tools — which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, the lang parameter's effect on results, or the shape/scope of the returned list.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the usage linkage parenthetically after. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers what the tool yields and how it is consumed. The only meaningful omission is the undocumented lang parameter, which leaves a small gap for a discovery 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?

There is one parameter (lang) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no indication that the listed definition types are language-dependent, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource: 'List all available definition types.' It also distinguishes itself from the two siblings it feeds into (faostat_get_definition_type, faostat_get_definitions_by_type), so an agent can place it correctly without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent: use the result with faostat_get_definition_type for FAO-wide definitions or faostat_get_definitions_by_type within one domain. That is clear downstream guidance, though it doesn't state that this tool should be called first to discover valid type values or note any prerequisite ordering.

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