get_trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the behavioral note that the tool retrieves data 'in one step,' indicating it combines multiple years into a single call. However, it does not disclose the return format, any rate limits, or whether specific permissions are needed. For a read-only trend retrieval, this is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a usage guideline, and four example queries. Each section serves a purpose, though the example list is somewhat long. It remains concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose, usage, and provides concrete examples, which is fairly complete for a data retrieval tool. It does not explicitly describe the response structure, but given the simplicity and the implicit 'time-series data' return, this is acceptable. A bit more detail on output could push it higher.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds example queries that illustrate how to fill the parameters (e.g., 'poverty trend Indonesia 2019-2023' maps to query, region, start_year, end_year), which provides slight added value beyond the schema.

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 'Retrieve time-series data (multi-year trend) in one step,' which clearly specifies the verb (retrieve), resource (time-series data), and scope (multi-year trend). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_census_data or get_dynamic_data by focusing on trend analysis. Example queries further clarify the tool's 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?

The description explicitly states 'Use this tool when the user wants to see data trends year over year,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the when-not-to-use guidance for a 5.

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