list_strategic_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a listing operation (implied read-only), it doesn't mention pagination behavior (though the schema has a 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the results will be in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 appropriately concise - two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and provide concrete examples. The first sentence clearly identifies the resource, and the second adds useful context about what strategic indicators include. There's no wasted verbiage.

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 listing tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what's being listed. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, result format, or how the parameters interact. The examples help, but more complete guidance would be beneficial given the lack of structured metadata.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (domain, var, page). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 purpose: 'Daftar indikator strategis BPS' (List strategic indicators of BPS) and provides examples of what these indicators include (economic growth, inflation, unemployment, poverty). This distinguishes it from other list_* tools that focus on different data types like census events, publications, or variables. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like list_variables or list_vertical_variables.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple list_* tools in the sibling set (list_variables, list_vertical_variables, list_subjects, etc.), but the description doesn't explain how strategic indicators differ from these other data types or when this specific tool is appropriate.

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