OECD-Search

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. It mentions the search action but doesn't describe key behaviors such as whether the search is case-sensitive, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), potential rate limits, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with relevant examples. There's no unnecessary verbiage, and it efficiently communicates the core functionality. However, the brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.

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 complexity (a search function with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details adequately, omits behavioral traits, and provides minimal usage guidance. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to effectively use the tool, especially compared to more comprehensive descriptions.

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?

The input schema has two parameters ('indicator' and 'category') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning no details are provided in the schema. The description only mentions the 'indicator' parameter ('by keyword') and gives examples, but it doesn't explain the 'category' parameter at all. This fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving one parameter undocumented and the other only partially clarified.

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: 'Search for specific economic or social indicators by keyword' with examples like 'inflation', 'unemployment', and 'GDP'. It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('economic or social indicators'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'search_dataflows' or 'query_data', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool, only implying usage for keyword-based searches of indicators. It doesn't specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'search_dataflows' or 'query_data', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of comparative context leaves the agent with insufficient information to make an informed selection among similar tools.

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