get_metadata

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool returns (unit, frequency, geography, overrideable dimensions, source dataset, official URL), which lets the agent anticipate the output. It does not explicitly state side effects or auth requirements, but for a metadata getter, the disclosure is sufficient.

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 sentences, with a clear subject-action object in the first sentence and a focused usage trigger in the second. Every phrase adds value, and it adheres to front-loading. No 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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and a clear purpose, the description is complete for an agent to decide when to use it. It explains what to retrieve and when to invoke it. The output schema covers return structure details, so the description need not explain those.

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 coverage is 100% (the parameter has a description: 'VeriTR indicator id.'). The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The mention of 'override dimensions in get_series' provides context but does not enhance understanding of the 'indicator' parameter itself.

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 states a specific action ('Get the full definition of an indicator') and lists key return elements (unit, frequency, geography coverage, overrideable dimensions, source dataset, URL). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_series by mentioning which dimensions may be overridden there.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when get_series arguments are unclear.' This signals the tool's role as a prerequisite/disambiguation tool, though it does not enumerate exclusions for other siblings. The context is clear enough.

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