World Bank — Get Country Indicator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, so the description needs only to add context. It adds value by detailing data scope (10,000+ indicators, 1960–present) and examples, without contradicting annotations. No mention of rate limits or pagination, but acceptable for a read-only tool.

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 moderately sized with a front-loaded purpose statement. It uses bullet points within text and a clear Args list. Some redundancy (e.g., date range repeated), but overall efficient 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?

Given the complexity of 5 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameter details, and data scope. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively, though lacking return format details (acceptable without output schema).

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 40% (only country_code and indicator have descriptions). The description compensates by explaining all parameters: country_code format, indicator as 'World Bank indicator code', start_year/end_year defaults and ranges, and response_format options. It adds meaning beyond the schema, especially for parameters without schema descriptions.

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 'Fetch World Bank macroeconomic indicator data for any country', specifying the verb (Fetch), resource (World Bank macroeconomic indicator data), and scope (any country). It also lists example indicators and a date range, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_indicators or weather/disasters tools.

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 common indicator codes and explains the tool's data coverage, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like globalpulse_worldbank_list_indicators for finding indicator codes, which would help an agent decide.

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