uis_list_indicators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by explaining it's for exploration and listing categories, but does not disclose additional traits like pagination or rate limits. No contradiction with 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 well-structured: starts with purpose, then categories, then simple args/returns. Every sentence is informative. Could be slightly more concise (e.g., the args section is minimal), but overall efficient.

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's complexity (thousands of indicators with theme/search), the description provides adequate categories and filter options. The output is described as a Markdown list with IDs and descriptions, which aligns with the exploration purpose. No output schema was provided, but the description covers key aspects.

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 all parameters (theme, search, limit) with clear details, so the description need not repeat them. However, the description adds value by listing example indicator categories (e.g., LR.*, NERA.*) that help the agent understand what to search for, going beyond the schema's formal descriptions.

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 specifies 'listet verfügbare Indikatoren' (lists available indicators) from UNESCO Institute for Statistics, with a scope of over 4,000 indicators across education, science, culture. It distinguishes from sibling tools like uis_get_education_data (which fetches data) by focusing on exploration and search.

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 states the function is for 'Exploration und Indikatorsuche' (exploration and indicator search), providing categories to guide use. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use or contrast with siblings, but the categories and purpose imply the correct context.

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