worldbank_explore_facets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that profile: no note on how many facet values come back, whether values are exhaustively enumerated, or what the 'explore' behavior implies about completeness.

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 clean sentence with no waste and the key resource front-loaded. Its brevity edges into under-specification rather than padding, so it reads efficiently even if it does too little.

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 explained, but for a discovery-style tool the description omits the essential workflow context: that the returned facet values are meant to become filters for the search tools, and how query narrows the facet set. The definition is too thin for a tool whose whole purpose is discovery-driven.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0% at the top level, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all — it never mentions the facets list, the optional query filter, or the response format. Although the nested $defs schema happens to carry descriptions, the prose contributes nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Explore available facet values') scoped to the World Bank Documents database, which an agent can distinguish from searching or fetching documents. However, it never differentiates itself from its siblings (worldbank_search_documents, worldbank_get_document_details, worldbank_search_by_project) or explains what a 'facet' is in this context.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call this first to discover filter values, or when to prefer worldbank_search_documents instead.

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