get_world_bank_indicator

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

With no annotations, the description relies on text to convey behavior. It correctly identifies this as a read operation (fetching indicator data) and specifies the geographic scope (Philippines). It also reveals that friendly aliases are accepted. However, it does not mention whether the data is paginated or sorted (though per_page parameter hints at sorting).

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to cover returns. It adequately covers the tool's scope and inputs. A minor gap is the lack of mention that the data is specific to the Philippines and that the output is time series, but the schema and parameter descriptions compensate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing examples of indicator codes and aliases (gdp, poverty_ratio, etc.), which clarifies the input format beyond the schema. The per_page parameter is already well-described in the schema.

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 fetches World Bank macroeconomic/social indicators for the Philippines. It distinguishes from sibling tools that cover specific indicators (e.g., get_poverty_stats) by implying this tool handles any World Bank indicator, but does not explicitly say it returns historical time-series data.

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 implies usage when a general World Bank indicator is needed, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus specialized siblings like get_poverty_stats or get_inflation_stats. No 'when-not-to-use' advice is provided.

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