World Bank indicator for the Philippines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the tool accepts both WB codes and friendly aliases, giving concrete examples. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it doesn't detail rate limits or error behavior.

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 purpose. The first sentence states the resource domain, and the second provides input syntax with examples. Every word earns its place with no fluff 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters, one required, and an output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics. It doesn't explain output structure, but that's covered by the output schema. It also doesn't mention pagination limits or error handling, but the schema and annotations cover safety. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description enhances this by providing concrete alias examples (e.g., 'gdp', 'poverty_ratio'), which bridge the gap between abstract schema descriptions and practical use. The per_page parameter is already well described in the schema, so the description adds value for the indicator parameter.

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 the resource is a 'World Bank macroeconomic/social indicator for the Philippines' and clarifies that it accepts indicator codes or friendly aliases. The verb 'get' is in the tool name, and the examples (e.g., 'NY.GDP.MKTP.CD', 'gdp') make the function clear. It is distinguishable from siblings that target specific data sources like PSA or specific indicators, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 gives input examples but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_poverty_stats or get_inflation_stats. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios. The usage context is only implicitly inferred from 'World Bank' and the sibling set.

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