list_strategic_indicators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that data is 'latest headline data' and includes 'the latest value', setting expectations for a non-historical summary list. It doesn't mention pagination or domain/region mapping, but for a read-only list tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 short, information-dense sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and an alternative for historical data. No redundancy or filler, and the purpose is 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?

For a list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what it lists, when to use it, what data to expect (latest value), and alternatives for history. It doesn't specify output structure or how a region maps to parameters, which is a minor gap but overall adequate.

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%, with each parameter (var, page, domain) having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 lists BPS strategic indicators with specific examples (inflation, GDP, poverty) and emphasizes 'latest headline data', which distinguishes it from historical-data tools like find_data/get_dynamic_data. The verb 'List' and resource 'BPS strategic indicators' are specific.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for a quick summary of key indicators for a region, and directs users needing multi-year historical data to find_data or get_dynamic_data. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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