World Bank — List Common Indicators

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

The description adds context that the tool returns the 'most commonly used' codes, not all codes, which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). However, it does not detail the response structure or error handling, but given the annotations already cover safety and idempotency, the description adds sufficient value.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence followed by usage guidance.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well but omits the parameter entirely. Given that the parameter is optional with an enum, this is a noticeable gap, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 description does not mention the response_format parameter, which has 0% schema description coverage. With only one optional parameter controlling output format (json/markdown), the description should have at least indicated its existence to help the agent use the tool effectively.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'World Bank indicator codes', and the scope 'most commonly used'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool globalpulse_worldbank_get_indicator by indicating its role as a precursor for discovering codes.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to discover codes before calling globalpulse_worldbank_get_indicator', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool for fetching specific indicator data.

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