get_latest_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns a single data point, interactively asks for geography if geo_unit_code is omitted, handles missing years by returning the nearest available year with a note, and includes data quality flags. This provides full transparency about what the tool does beyond the schema.

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 long but well-structured with clear sections (GEOGRAPHY RULES, Args, Returns). Every sentence adds value, though the example questions and some prose could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 3 parameters (one required) and a detailed output schema, the description is extremely complete. It explains return values in a human-readable way (e.g., note about year substitution), covers all behaviors, and provides contextual rules. The output schema already defines the return structure, so the description enhances rather than repeats it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently: it explains indicator_code (e.g., 'CR.1'), geo_unit_code with geography rules (ISO3 for countries, confirmed code for regions, or omit for interactive lookup), and year with default behavior (most recent if omitted, nearest year if no data). This adds critical meaning not in the raw schema.

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 the value of a UNESCO UIS indicator for a specific country or region.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (value of indicator for geography), and distinguishes from siblings like get_time_series (multiple data points) and search_indicators (finding 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance with example questions ('What is the literacy rate in Kenya?'). It also gives when-not-to-use by specifying geography rules (for regions, use search_geo_units first) and references sibling tools like search_indicators for finding codes. It even tells the agent to always show the year alongside the value.

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