wb_indicator

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the list of popular indicators but does not disclose behavioral traits such as return format, time-series structure, or any data limitations. Since the annotation covers the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence efficiently lists four popular indicator codes. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 a straightforward read-only tool, a clear schema, and a helpful set of examples, the description covers the essential context. However, since there is no output schema, the description could have briefly mentioned what the response contains (e.g., a time series or single value), leaving a minor 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 input schema already documents all three parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds practical value by providing examples of indicator codes with human-readable meanings (GDP, life expectancy, health spend, unemployment). This goes beyond the schema's generic example and helps the agent select realistic values.

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's function: 'Get a World Bank indicator for a country.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like wb_compare, wb_search, and wb_countries, which have different scopes.

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 gives a clear action but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wb_compare or wb_search. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'Get' and the mention of popular indicators, with no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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