APIbase

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about the data source (World Bank) and the types of metrics available, but does not disclose rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or error handling specifics.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and immediately specifies the domain and scope. Every word earns its place—'World Bank' establishes authority, the dash-separated list clarifies content types, and '200+ countries' establishes coverage without verbosity.

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 simple parameter structure (4 flat parameters, 2 required) and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and data domain. While it lacks details about the return format (no output schema exists), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what data to expect (development indicators).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description lists example indicators (GDP, population, etc.) which conceptually map to the indicator_id parameter, but the schema already provides specific examples ('NY.GDP.MKTP.CD' for GDP). The description does not add syntax details or format constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 action (Get), source (World Bank), and content (global development indicators including GDP, population, inflation, trade, poverty) for 200+ countries. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'finance.macro.indicator', leaving ambiguity about which tool to use for indicator-centric vs country-centric queries.

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, particularly the sibling 'finance.macro.indicator'. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., needing valid ISO codes) or exclusion criteria that would help an agent select this over other economic data tools.

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