faostat_get_rankings

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful operational detail (default limit=10, response_format default and supported values), but omits ranking direction, whether it is read-only, and error behavior on invalid codes. Moderate but incomplete disclosure.

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 short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the caveats that matter. Efficient, though the value/format notes could be grouped more tightly.

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 no explanation, and the trickiest parameter (element_code) is well covered. Still, for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations, several parameters and the ranking direction are left implicit.

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 and it does so selectively: element_code's display-vs-filter distinction is genuinely valuable, and limit/response_format defaults are clarified. However domain_code, item_code, year, and lang receive no explanation, leaving a large share of the 7 parameters undocumented.

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 (rank) and resource (countries) with the scoping keys (domain/item/element/year), so the operation is unambiguous. It partially distinguishes itself from get_data by contrasting element_code semantics, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it competes with. Clear but sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 comparison to get_data ('DISPLAY code ... unlike get_data filter code') hints at which tool to pick for display-ranked output, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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