get_ranking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states 'in one step' and 'across all provinces,' adding some value. However, it does not describe output format, handling of missing data, or limitations (e.g., max top_n), leaving the agent to infer from the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded: purpose sentence, usage sentence, then a bulleted list of examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the examples are illustrative without being verbose.

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?

Given a simple tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenario, and query examples. It could mention default top_n or max values, but these are already in the schema. Overall, the context is sufficient for accurate tool selection.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond schema by providing example queries that clarify the 'query' parameter's semantics (e.g., 'kemiskinan', 'pengangguran', 'IPM'). This helps the agent map user intent to the indicator field, adding meaningful value.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve province rankings by a given indicator.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_trend, compare_data) by focusing on rankings across all provinces. The example queries reinforce the exact purpose.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use this tool when the user wants to see rankings, top-N, or comparisons across all provinces.' No explicit when-not or alternative tool references, but the positive use cases are concrete and unambiguous.

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