Get Indicator Metadata

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

Annotations already provide rich behavioral signals (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds only the exact-match requirement and lists the returned fields, which is useful but not extensive. No contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: verb, returned content, and the exact-match qualifier are all present.

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-only, one-parameter metadata lookup with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without needing additional behavioral or return details.

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 carry the meaning of the 'indicator' parameter. It does this by clarifying that the value is an exact World Bank indicator code, which is sufficient for a single, intuitively named parameter.

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 names concrete return facets ('definition, source, and topics'), scoped to an exact World Bank indicator code. This clearly distinguishes metadata retrieval from the sibling get_indicator_data tool, which implies data values.

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 usage context is implied by the tool name and description—use this when you need metadata rather than data series—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_indicator_data or get_country_profile. There is no when-not or alternative routing guidance.

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