faostat_get_metadata_print

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

The description reveals the tool is a read operation (non-destructive) and produces simplified output, but no annotations are present. It lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or response characteristics beyond what the output schema may provide.

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 concise at two sentences plus argument list. However, the 'Args:' formatting is slightly verbose for a tool description. It could be more streamlined.

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 presence of an output schema and many sibling tools, the description is adequate but not thorough. It does not explain what the simplified format entails or how it differs from the standard metadata output.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose, providing examples (e.g., 'QCL', 'FS') and noting the default for 'lang'. This compensates well for the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves metadata in a 'printable/simplified format'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool faostat_get_metadata, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the format description.

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 for printable metadata but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like faostat_get_metadata. No exclusion criteria or contextual advice is given.

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