Get Indicator Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by noting pagination and annual frequency, but most constraints it mentions ('up to 20 countries', 'bounded year range') merely repeat what the schema already enforces through maxItems and min/max values.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and immediately communicates the core action and primary constraints. It loses a point for using 'bounded year range' where something like 'inclusive startYear/endYear range' would be more precise, but overall it is concise 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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and the description leaves out essential invocation details such as what an 'indicator' is, how countries should be formatted, and how pagination behaves. It also provides no routing to sibling tools. The description is too sparse to fully enable correct use without external knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only broadly refers to countries and a year range. It does not explain the indicator format, country code pattern, page/pageSize defaults, or whether startYear/endYear are inclusive. This is inadequate for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('indicator time series'), and adds key scoping details: paginated, annual, up to 20 countries, and a bounded year range. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_indicator_metadata (metadata vs data) and find_countries (country lookup vs data retrieval).

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of its siblings, such as compare_countries or get_indicator_metadata. There is no 'when to use', 'when not to use', or mention of alternatives. The intended selection context is only implied by the tool's name and the sibling list.

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