faostat_list_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe, read-only enumeration by calling itself a discovery tool, but it says nothing about whether the list is static, whether lang affects results, or the practical return shape beyond the examples. For a zero-parameter read tool the risk is low, so this is a moderate gap rather than a severe one.

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 sentences, no filler, with the action, the concrete contents, and the purpose each stated once and front-loaded. Every sentence 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 description is adequate for a simple listing call. What is missing is the differentiation from the several sibling list/lookup tools and any mention of the lang parameter, which leaves the definition a bit thin in a crowded namespace.

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?

There is one parameter (lang, default 'en') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent cannot learn from either source that output language is selectable, let alone what values are accepted.

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 (list top-level FAOSTAT data groups) with concrete examples (Production, Trade, Food Security), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related siblings faostat_list_domains or faostat_groups_and_domains, though 'top-level' hints at the hierarchy level.

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 to discover what categories of data are available' gives a clear discovery-oriented context for calling the tool. However, it names no alternatives or conditions, which matters here because faostat_list_domains and faostat_groups_and_domains appear to cover overlapping territory and the agent gets no routing guidance.

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