worldbank_search_documents

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 and the description is not contradicted. But the description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no note on pagination semantics, rate limits, or the fact that results are ranked rather than exact matches. With annotations carrying the load, this is a thin add.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean. The brevity arguably crosses into under-specification, but as a sentence it earns its place and wastes no tokens.

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 need not be explained, and the nested input schema documents filters, dates, sorting and pagination thoroughly. What is missing is the selection layer: with three sibling search/exploration tools, the description never says when this one is the right choice, leaving a real gap for a 10-filter search tool.

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 reported at 0%, so the description is expected to compensate for parameter ambiguity, and it does not — it mentions no query syntax, date filters, country/language/document-type filters, sorting, or pagination. All of that meaning sits in the nested schema only, and the single visible top-level "params" reference is opaque.

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 ("Search for documents in the World Bank Documents & Reports database"), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling worldbank_search_by_project, which is also a document search, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which search tool to pick.

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 exclusions, and no reference to any alternative (e.g. worldbank_search_by_project for project-scoped queries, or worldbank_explore_facets when the user does not know valid filter values). The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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