wb_indicator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the basic fetch semantics and does not mention return format or date-range behavior, but there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a terse list of useful indicator examples. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only tool with three documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the response looks like. An agent might not know whether the result is a single value, a time series, or a formatted table, which is a meaningful gap.

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 describes all three parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by mapping common indicator codes to human-readable concepts (GDP, life expectancy, health spend, unemployment). This gives the agent concrete, usable parameter examples that the schema does not provide.

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 specific verb ('Get'), resource ('World Bank indicator'), and scope ('for a country'), which is clear and distinct from generic names. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like wb_compare or wb_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies this tool is for fetching a known indicator for a country and the popular examples hint at common use cases, but it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of wb_search for finding indicators or wb_compare for multi-country comparison.

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