oecd_rank

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals a key trait: only same-time data are used for comparability. However, it does not mention edge cases (e.g., missing data, tie handling) or the read-only nature, leaving some gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word adds value, and it avoids repetition of the tool name or schema fields.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core function and an important constraint. It could mention how it interacts with sibling tools, but the current content is sufficient for basic invocation.

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%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It implies 'country' refers to a specific nation, but 'indicator' is not elaborated—no examples, allowed values, or format hints are provided. The description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states the tool's function: calculating a country's rank, percentile, and average gap relative to all OECD member countries. This specific verb+resource combination ('계산한다... 순위·백분위·평균 격차') distinguishes it from siblings like oecd_trend or oecd_compare.

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 a clear usage context by noting it compares only same-time data, ensuring comparability. This implies when to use the tool (for cross-country ranking at a fixed point) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases.

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