Philippine poverty incidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the data comes from PSA and that the latest vintage is 2023 Full-Year, giving useful temporal context. However, it does not describe output format or any filtering behavior beyond what annotations and schema already cover.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the core information (data type, source, recency). There is no wasted text, and it is easy to scan quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema (as indicated by context). The description covers the data source and latest year, which is sufficient for basic usage. It could mention regional filtering explicitly, but the schema already handles that.

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 'region' parameter has a clear description: 'PH region (None returns national).' The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so the schema carries the full burden for parameter semantics.

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 'Poverty incidence from PSA', which clearly identifies the data topic and source. Combined with the title 'Philippine poverty incidence', it distinguishes this from sibling tools about population, inflation, etc., though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any excluded use cases or suggest alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer suitability solely from the name.

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