get_indicator_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is fast because it uses a local database without API calls, and it details the return structure including not_found list. It does not mention any destructive behavior or auth requirements, but for a read-only summary tool, this is sufficient. A score of 4 reflects that it adds valuable behavioral context beyond just the operation.

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 brief overview, usage comparison, args section, and returns section. Every sentence adds value, and it is concise without being overly verbose.

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 has a single parameter and an output schema (described in detail), the description provides complete context. It explains the return structure, what data is included, and behavior for missing codes. No gaps remain.

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 only parameter, indicator_codes, is described with additional meaning: 'List of indicator codes (1–10). Use codes from search_indicators results.' This adds constraints and source information beyond the schema which only specifies array of strings. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a lightweight summary for one or more UNESCO UIS indicators.' It specifies the verb, resource, and distinguishes it from sibling get_indicator_metadata by mentioning it returns key fields from the local database without API calls.

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 provides usage guidance: 'Much faster than get_indicator_metadata — use this when you need a quick overview... Use get_indicator_metadata when you need glossary definitions...' It also mentions constraints (1–10 indicator codes) and source of codes (search_indicators results).

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