wb_compare

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as output shape, result structure, or date-range behavior beyond what the schema already implies.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence and a natural language trigger in the second. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary filler.

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 low tool complexity, complete parameter documentation, and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient for an agent to select the tool correctly. The only missing context is a description of the return shape, but nothing critical blocks correct invocation.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, including semicolon-separated ISO2 codes and the default date range, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a clear verb and resource: compare a World Bank indicator across multiple countries, and the 'Great for...' framing makes the purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like wb_indicator or wb_countries, but the cross-country comparison scope is specific enough on its own.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger example, 'How does US compare to...' questions, so an agent knows when this tool is the right choice. It could be stronger by explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use it, but the stated use case is clear.

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