Get country macro indicators (World Bank)

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

Annotations already provide readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints, and the description adds useful behavior beyond those annotations: data are annual, typically lag 6-18 months old, and arbitrary World Bank indicator IDs are accepted. This helps set expectations without contradicting 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and use case, and every sentence serves a purpose. The indicator list is long and partially duplicates schema content, which slightly reduces conciseness, but the overall structure is efficient and readable.

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 read-only World Bank retrieval tool, the description covers the important decision-relevant facts: country scope, aggregate support, supported indicators, annual frequency, and lag time. It does not describe pagination or failure behavior, but the schema is thorough and no output schema exists, so this is nearly complete.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the schema already describes every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does add aggregate examples such as 'WLD' and 'EUU' and a sample World Bank indicator ID, but it mostly repeats the indicator list already present in the parameter 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get annual macroeconomic indicators') and resource ('any country from the World Bank'), and clarifies scope with country aggregates. It clearly conveys what the tool does, but does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool macro_get_series, so it falls 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?

It provides a concrete use context ('e.g. to compare the markets a company sells in') and explains data cadence and recency. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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