list_sdgs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a non-obvious constraint: 'Domain is always 0000 (National),' and highlights the presence of var_id, which is beyond the schema. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only, 'List' implies a read operation, and the added details are valuable.

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, each earning its place: main purpose, optional parameter, and workflow insight. It's front-loaded and free of filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, filtering option, workflow (var_id to get_dynamic_data), and an important domain constraint. It slightly lacks detail about the response structure, but the mention of var_id and 'indicators' gives sufficient context. Overall, it's a complete enough description for this simple tool.

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 parameter description ('Goal number to filter (1-17). Omit to list all SDG indicators.') fully explains the goal parameter. The tool description merely restates this as 'Optionally filter by goal number (1-17),' adding no new semantic information. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'List Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) indicators from BPS.' The verb 'List' and specific resource 'SDG indicators from BPS' make it unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning var_id linkage to get_dynamic_data, separating it from data-fetching tools like get_sdgs_data.

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 provides workflow context by stating 'Each indicator has a var_id that can be used with get_dynamic_data to fetch actual values,' indicating when to use this tool as a precursor. It also mentions optional filtering by goal number. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implicit link to get_dynamic_data.

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