faostat_get_definitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope of the result set (all definitions for a given domain), which is useful, but says nothing about whether this is a safe read-only call, whether results are cached or paginated, or whether a valid domain_code must first be obtained from a listing tool.

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 compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the ambiguity with sibling tools.

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 the description need not explain return values, and its brevity is partly justified. However, given a sibling set containing four other definition-related tools with overlapping names, the description is not complete enough to guarantee correct tool selection.

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 the description must compensate for both parameters and does so only partially: "for a domain" implies domain_code but gives no format or example, and the lang parameter (default "en") is never mentioned at all.

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 clear verb+resource ("Get all definitions") and scopes it to a domain, with a parenthetical clarifying that definitions cover items, elements and flags. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as faostat_get_definitions_by_type, faostat_get_definition_type, or faostat_definition_types, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling definition tools. The agent is left to infer that "all definitions" means the unfiltered superset and that faostat_get_definitions_by_type is the filtered alternative, but the description never says so.

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