Country Profile

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one useful behavioral fact – that values are 'latest available' and therefore may lag – but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or coverage gaps for countries.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter note appended only where needed. Every clause earns its place by naming real 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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values or safety, and it correctly focuses on scope and coverage ('latest available values'). The only shortfall is the absence of any routing signal relative to the sibling tools.

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% and the schema already states the country accepts an ISO code or name, so the description's note that 'Country accepts an ISO code' adds little and is actually narrower than the schema's 'ISO code or name'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get a snapshot of a country's key macro indicators') and enumerates the exact indicators returned, so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It stops short of naming or contrasting with the sibling tools (country_indicator, compare_countries), so differentiation is left implicit.

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 phrase 'latest available values' implies this is a point-in-time snapshot rather than a time series, which hints at when to prefer it over country_indicator, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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