Philippine health indicators

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about the default response, fuzzy-match behavior, and that the available indicator list is never hardcoded but browse-discovered, which goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 compact, front-loaded with the domain and source, and every sentence adds value. No filler or 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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the default behavior, parameter semantics, and source. The output schema exists to explain return values, so no additional return details are needed.

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 schema already describes the parameter well with examples and default. The description adds semantic detail by explaining 'fuzzy-match' and that the list is 'browse-discovered, never hardcoded', informing the agent that exact strings are not required and discovery is possible via other tools.

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 returns 'National health indicators from PSA OpenSTAT' and specifies the default headline set (maternal mortality ratio and total fertility rate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the Health subject, making its scope unmistakable.

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?

It gives clear behavioral guidance: no argument returns the curated set, while a free-text indicator triggers fuzzy matching against Health subject tables. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the health-specific domain naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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