wb_data

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only query via the word '查询' and notes flexible input modes, but does not describe limit behavior, default country semantics, or how registered names are resolved. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately gives the key usage pattern. No redundant words; every phrase 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?

The tool has no required parameters and an output schema, so the bar for completeness is lower. The description covers the core invocation modes but leaves some gaps, such as what 'registered name' means, how to discover valid indicators, and what the 'limit' parameter controls.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'indicator' by clarifying it accepts either a registered name or an arbitrary indicator, and to 'country' by indicating it is a country code. However, the 'limit' parameter is completely unexplained.

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 the tool is a World Bank data query and gives a specific invocation pattern: pass a registered name like 'wb_gdp_growth' or an arbitrary indicator plus country code. This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic financial or market data tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for World Bank data, and tells the agent how to call it with either a registered name or an arbitrary indicator + country code. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the domain is clear.

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