oecd_trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it calculates and returns trend metrics and explains the default time range behavior (recent 10 years if start/end empty). However, it does not mention limitations, data requirements, or output structure (though the output schema exists).

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 that are front-loaded: the first states the tool's core purpose, and the second clarifies date parameters. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description gives the essential purpose, lists returned computations, and explains start/end default behavior. However, it omits guidance on valid indicator values and does not mention that indicator is required. Sibling tools like oecd_list_indicators would provide necessary context, but the description does not reference them.

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. It only explains start and end format ('2010', '2024' and default to recent 10 years) but does not explain the indicator parameter (required) or the country parameter (default '한국'). The description adds some value but leaves half the parameters undocumented.

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 analyzes OECD time series and computes specific trend metrics (rate of change, CAGR, high/low, trend direction). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oecd_stats (raw data) and oecd_rank (rankings).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or exclusion criteria. The only usage info is the start/end format instruction, which relates to parameters, not tool selection.

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