faostat_get_codes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two genuinely useful behaviors: filter codes differ from display codes (with a concrete example) and limit=0 returns all codes. However it says nothing about auth/permission requirements, whether the operation is read-only, or rate/latency characteristics.

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: purpose first, then the alternative routing, then the critical filter-vs-display caveat, then the limit special case. Every sentence carries information and the most important routing guidance is front-loaded. Not maximal only because the code-distinction note is dense enough to warrant light framing.

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 values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, alternative tool, and the key code-type quirk. For a 4-param tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, though, it omits what dimension_id values are valid and any auth/prerequisite context, leaving real gaps.

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 0%, so all four parameters rely on the description and their names. The description clarifies the non-obvious limit parameter (limit=0 returns all codes) and frames domain_code within "domain FILTER codes," but dimension_id (the key selector for which code dimension to browse) is left without semantics; lang is only inferable from its name.

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 and resource ("Browse domain FILTER codes") and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling faostat_search_codes for named lookups. The added distinction between filter codes and display codes sharpens the purpose further. Not a 5 only because "browse" is slightly loose, but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

Provides an explicit routing rule: "Prefer faostat_search_codes for named lookups," which tells the agent when to pick the alternative over this tool. It lacks an explicit "use this when..." positive condition and no exclusions beyond the one sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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