real_gdp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states 'Fetch real GDP'. It doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or what the output format might be, making it inadequate for a tool with parameters.

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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Fetch real GDP', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification, but for conciseness alone, it scores highly.

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?

Given the complexity of a data-fetching tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't cover purpose differentiation, usage, behavior, or parameters, making it insufficient for effective tool invocation.

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 input schema has 2 parameters (interval, datatype) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about these parameters. It doesn't explain what 'interval' or 'datatype' mean, their expected values, or how they affect the fetch operation, failing 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?

The description 'Fetch real GDP' restates the tool name with a generic verb 'fetch', making it tautological. It doesn't specify what 'real GDP' refers to (e.g., economic indicator, data source, geographic scope) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'real_gdp_per_capita', leaving the purpose vague beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'real_gdp_per_capita' or other economic indicators like 'cpi' or 'inflation', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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