Top host / origin countries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, external-data read. The description adds the normalization semantics (population/gdp denominators) and a concrete example of the ranking effect, but says nothing about pagination, ranking ties, or the normalize_by worldbank provider dependency beyond what the schema already notes. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core operation before the parameter nuances. The closing example ('Lebanon and Chad ahead of large economies') is illustrative but borderline flourish rather than essential instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the main parameter-driven modes; only the metric parameter's accepted values and the worldbank provider requirement for normalization rely entirely on the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates much of what the schema already says ('asylum' ranks hosts, 'origin' ranks origins) and adds only the default for by and the illustration of normalization; it does not explain metric, limit, or locale beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rank countries by a displacement metric') and immediately clarifies the two modes via the by parameter, so an agent distinguishes this from siblings like refugee_population or compare_countries. The title and description align, with no tautology.

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?

Clearly tells the agent when to use by="asylum" versus by="origin" and when to set normalize_by. It gives clear context for the parameter-driven use cases but does not compare against sibling tools (e.g. when to prefer compare_countries or trend_analysis), so no explicit alternative routing.

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