list_sdds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by noting that each indicator has var_id and model type, and that domain is always 0000 (National). However, it does not disclose the exact return structure (e.g., full list of fields), pagination behavior, or whether any side effects exist (though listing implies read-only). Some behavioral traits are disclosed, but not comprehensively.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each sentence adds relevant information (scope, indicator attributes, fixed domain) without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides necessary context: the source (BPS), the standard (IMF SDDS), and key attributes of returned indicators (var_id, model type, domain). It lacks explicit details about the full return format or any limitations, but for a list operation, it covers the essential information needed for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 tool has zero parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that returned indicators include var_id and model type, and that the domain is always 0000, giving the agent a sense of what the list contains beyond the empty 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 clearly states that the tool lists SDDS indicators from BPS, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Special Data Dissemination Standard indicators'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the IMF standard and the fixed domain (0000 National), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 implies usage context (to discover available indicators and their attributes for fetching values) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_sdds_data or other list tools. It mentions that var_id and model type are 'used to fetch actual values,' which hints at a subsequent data-fetching step, but no alternative tool is named.

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