faostat_search_codes

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It details the three possible outcomes (single match, multiple matches, no matches) with explicit flags (requires_confirmation), includes agent instructions for handling each case, and provides message examples that clarify system behavior.

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?

While lengthy, every section serves a purpose: the opening states use case, followed by behavioral details, parameter descriptions, return shapes, and examples. The structure is logical and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

With 4 parameters (3 required), no enums, and a text-described output schema, the description covers all necessary context: when to use, how to interpret results, and agent actions for each case. No gaps remain for the agent to guess behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds comprehensive details for each parameter: domain_code is explained as a domain code (e.g., 'QCL'), dimension_id lists valid options, query is described as a case-insensitive substring with examples, and lang has a default explained. This far exceeds the baseline.

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 it searches codes in a dimension by name, specifies its role as a precursor to faostat_get_data for partial or uncertain code names, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like faostat_get_codes by noting it should be used when browsing all codes is not needed.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('before faostat_get_data when you have a partial or uncertain code name'), provides clear instructions for multiple matches ('STOP and ask the user'), and suggests an alternative (faostat_get_codes) for no matches.

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