wb_compare

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

The description states 'compare' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation (true). No additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. Since annotations already indicate read-only, the description adds minimal value but does not contradict.

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 a single sentence plus a use-case phrase, with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates 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?

For a simple compare tool with no output schema, the description is marginally adequate. It does not explain return format or quirks, but the schema covers parameters. With no nested objects or enums, the complexity is low, so this is acceptable.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters adequately.

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: compare a World Bank indicator across multiple countries. The verb 'compare' and resource 'World Bank indicator across multiple countries' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wb_indicator (single indicator) and wb_search (search indicators).

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 a use case: 'Great for How does US compare to... questions.' This implies when to use but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Given sibling tools exist for single-country or search scenarios, some guidance is implied but not stated.

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