faostat_definition_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action and the lang parameter, without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication, rate limits, or output format (though an output schema exists but is not referenced).

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 very concise with two sentences, no wasted words. The Args section is inline and functional, though not as structured as some definitions.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool is simple (one optional param), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks context on when to use vs siblings and does not mention any behavioral details like pagination or data limits.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'lang' is a language code with a default of 'en', which provides some meaning beyond the schema, but remains minimal.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'definition types', with a usage hint connecting to faostat_get_definitions_by_type. However, it does not differentiate this tool from other sibling tools like faostat_get_codes or faostat_get_dimensions beyond the specific resource.

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 as a precursor to faostat_get_definitions_by_type, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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