get_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'ranked', 'single point in time', and 'ALL regions'. It does not discuss tie handling, data gaps, or default ordering, but the output schema likely covers return structure, and the description clearly indicates the core behavior. A slight gap remains in not mentioning what happens with missing data or exact ranking semantics.

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, front-loaded with the core definition and immediately followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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, a clear purpose, explicit usage context, and a complete output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from alternatives, leaving no critical gaps for selection or 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 100%, with all four parameters fully described in the schema. The description only adds that 'one indicator' refers to the indicator parameter, which doesn't meaningfully extend beyond the schema. According to guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gets one indicator's value across all regions at a single point in time, ranked. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_series by noting it should be used for 'which provinces have the highest/lowest X' questions, which differentiates it from the sibling tool.

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 second sentence gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for "which provinces have the highest/lowest X" questions instead of calling get_series once per province.' This clearly states when to use the tool and explicitly names an alternative, satisfying the dimension fully.

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