faostat_groups_and_domains

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

The description reveals the key behavioral trait: it returns a hierarchical tree structure. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adequately conveys the read-only, non-destructive nature, though it omits details like authentication or rate limits.

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 with two front-loaded sentences and a brief Args line. Every part serves a purpose, though the Args line adds minimal value over the schema.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main functionality and usage context. However, it lacks explanation of the lang parameter, leaving a gap in completeness.

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 only parameter 'lang' is listed but not described beyond its default value. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining that lang controls the language of group/domain names, which it fails to do.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full hierarchical tree of all FAOSTAT groups and their domains'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'faostat_list_groups' which likely return flat lists.

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 says 'Use this for a complete overview of all available datasets,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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