faostat_groups_and_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read via 'Get' and signals potentially large output ('full hierarchical tree of all'), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or response size. Adequate but thin for an unannotated 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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first but does add usage value, so it earns its place.

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 explained, and the tool is simple with one optional param. Still, the description omits any guidance on 'lang' and any explicit tie-break against the list_groups/list_domains siblings, leaving small but 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?

The single 'lang' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. Its purpose (label language) and valid values are left entirely to guesswork, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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: 'Get the full hierarchical tree of all FAOSTAT groups and their domains.' The word 'hierarchical' plus 'all' distinguishes it in spirit from the flat sibling tools faostat_list_groups and faostat_list_domains, but those siblings are never named, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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?

'Use this for a complete overview of all available datasets' gives a use case, which is more than nothing. However, it never contrasts with the obvious alternatives (faostat_list_groups, faostat_list_domains) or states when a flat list would be preferable, leaving selection to inference.

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