Country Indicator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered structurally. The description's one genuinely new behavioral fact is the World Bank as the data source and that only 'recent years' are returned, plus the accepted input forms; it says nothing about missing data, rate limits, or how gaps are handled.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the enumeration of indicators and accepted input formats. The indicator list is long but functional, since it tells the agent the tool's coverage without opening list_indicators.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are documented. For a simple read-only data-fetch tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, source, and input formats adequately; only sibling differentiation is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description largely repeats the indicator list and the country-code flexibility. It adds marginal value, and its claim that country accepts an ISO code or World Bank code sits slightly at odds with the schema wording (ISO code or name).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a macroeconomic indicator for a country over recent years') and names the data source (World Bank), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as country_profile or compare_countries, which also operate on countries, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a country over recent years', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer country_profile or compare_countries, and no exclusions. The routing hint to list_indicators only appears in the schema, not the description.

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