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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the source and that no API key is needed, but it does not describe the response format, potential rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentence followed by a brief source note. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no redundant words, and every part adds value.

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 relatively simple with two parameters, and the description provides the key context of the IMF source and licensing. However, without an output schema, it does not explain the return structure or any potential edge cases, leaving some gap in completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already having descriptive text and indicator codes listed in the schema. The description adds a few example types (debt, etc.) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets an IMF World Economic Outlook indicator for a country, listing examples. It distinguishes from siblings by naming IMF as the source, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like Eurostat or OECD.

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 context by identifying the IMF as the data source, making it clear for IMF-specific data. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other economic indicator tools or provide any exclusions.

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