Rank countries by macro indicator

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false, so the 'Read-only' line is redundant. What earns credit is the added context: coverage of roughly 200 countries, and that every row carries value, period, source and a historyCode — return-shape information the annotations cannot convey and no output schema exists to supply.

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 lead clause front-loads the verb, resource and source, and the example queries earn their place by disambiguating the two usage modes. Some length is wasted re-enumerating all 15 indicator values that the enum already lists verbatim.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states row fields (value, period, source, historyCode) and the country universe. Remaining gaps are minor but real: it doesn't say whether the latest available period is used or how to interpret 'vs history' comparators.

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 75% and the enum glosses already explain each indicator; only 'limit' is undocumented. The description adds modest value by expanding friendly names ('government debt/GDP', 'price-to-rent vs history', 'BIS credit-to-GDP gap'), but it never clarifies how 'countries' interacts with ranking or whether the latest period is returned — so it roughly matches the schema baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb (rank/compare) and resource (countries on a macro indicator) plus the source warehouse. It is clearly separable from siblings: get_macro_history is the time-series companion and get_country_macro is the single-country view, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete example questions ('fastest growing economies', 'highest inflation in Europe', 'compare unemployment in Spain, Italy and Greece') that map directly onto the two supported modes: rank-all vs. named-country comparison. It also routes to get_macro_history via historyCode. It stops short of explicitly stating when NOT to use it (e.g. single-country profile → get_country_macro).

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