compare_indicators

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

With no annotations, the description reveals the tool's purpose, parameters, and default behavior. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe side effects, but the nature of comparison implies no destructive actions. Additional detail on return format could be added.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear docstring format for parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, parameters with examples, and default behavior. It is complete for effective use.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains 'names' are friendly indicator names with examples, and 'period' includes allowed values ('1y', '2y', '5y', '10y') and default. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is essential and well-done.

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 it compares two or more indicators over the same period, with concrete examples like 'did wage growth beat inflation'. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as 'list_indicators' or 'get_indicator' by focusing on comparison.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('for questions like...'), implying comparative analysis. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the examples and scope give sufficient guidance.

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