worldbank_get_document_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description itself adds no behavioral context such as what 'detailed information' comprises, error behavior for a bad ID, or that open-world lookups may refer to external URLs.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. It is arguably undersized for a tool with usage and parameter nuances, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 simple read-by-ID tool with full annotations and an output schema, the essentials are present: an output schema removes the need to describe return values, and annotations cover safety. However, the description omits any pointer to where IDs originate and any when-to-use vs search guidance, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The description mentions no parameters at all. The nested input model does carry useful descriptions for document_id (ID/GUID with an example) and response_format, which partially mitigates the gap, but against a reported top-level schema coverage of 0% the description should have compensated and does not.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('detailed information for a specific World Bank document'), which is clearly distinct from the search/explore siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, but the get-by-id semantics are unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives like worldbank_search_documents. The only hint that a document_id comes from elsewhere appears in the schema, not the description.

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