get_indicator_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains what the tool does and the return structure, but lacks explicit disclosure of side effects (e.g., mutations), safety, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured with a summary sentence, usage guidance, argument docs, and returns breakdown. It is concise enough for the detail needed, with no superfluous content.

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?

The description is complete: it defines the tool's purpose, usage, parameter, and return structure in detail. With an output schema present, the description still adds value by explaining nested fields, making the tool fully understandable.

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 schema provides only the parameter name with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful context: the indicator code format and examples ('e.g. 'CR.1', 'ROFST.1.cp'). This significantly aids the AI agent.

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 ('Get'), resource ('detailed metadata for a specific UNESCO UIS indicator'), and scope. It differentiates this tool from its sibling 'search_indicators' by instructing to use it after finding indicator 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 tells when to use this tool: 'Use this after finding indicator codes via search_indicators.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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