wb_search

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, lowering the bar for disclosure. The description adds keyword-based search and examples, but it does not explain what the search returns (e.g., indicator codes, names, metadata) or whether it is partial/fuzzy matching, which would be useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and each sentence adds value. The examples are concise and illustrative without extraneous detail.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete, but it omits any mention of return format or how results relate to sibling tools like wb_indicator. The examples hint at expected queries but not at the output structure (e.g., list of matching indicators with codes), which would be valuable for an agent to know how to proceed.

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 provides a clear description for 'query' ('Keywords to search for'), giving baseline 3 per high coverage. The description adds concrete examples of valid input values ('GDP', 'health expenditure', 'life expectancy', 'CO2 emissions'), which enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema alone.

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 action ('Search') and the specific resource ('World Bank indicators') with keyword-based input. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_indicator (likely for retrieving indicator data) and wb_compare, and the examples ('GDP', 'health expenditure') reinforce the intended scope.

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 conveys a clear use case: finding World Bank indicators by keyword. It implies when to use this tool (when you need to search for indicator names or terms) and the examples provide concrete queries, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives like wb_indicator for fetching actual data.

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