get_macro_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by disclosing data provenance (World Bank + FRED), which implies annual, lagged official statistics rather than live market data. It stops short of stating update frequency, latency, or coverage limits per country.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource and default country front-loaded, followed by the indicator list and the source attribution. Nothing is padded, though the source sentence could arguably be folded in more tightly.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the right thing by enumerating the returned indicator set, so an agent knows what payload to expect. Combined with the schema's note that World Bank data is annual, coverage is nearly complete; only rate-limit/permission behavior is unaddressed, which is low-risk for a read-only data lookup.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (years, country) are already documented in the schema, including the ISO-3 constraint and the annual-data caveat. The description adds only the 'default: Türkiye' hint, which is already mirrored by the schema default of TUR. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Bir ülkenin temel makroekonomik göstergelerini döndürür') and enumerates exactly which indicators come back (GDP growth, per-capita GDP, inflation, unemployment, current account, reserves, exports/imports). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_inflation_data or get_market_indicators, but the indicator list makes the scope clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the country-level macro overview tool and that the default is Türkiye. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to overlapping siblings such as get_inflation_data (which likely returns more granular inflation series).

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