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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior beyond those annotations: the dual-mode response shape, the presence of legal citations, and the actionable attribution obligation ('preserve that attribution whenever values are quoted onward'). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the domain purpose and flows logically from the no-arg mode to the arg mode to the attribution obligation. It is longer than the minimal case but every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of schema fields. Each clause earning its place earns it a strong score.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly for both modes, including the attribution field requirement. Given the low parameter count and simple schema, little is missing; only finer details like pagination or response size limits are absent, which are minor for a single-country lookup.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: a concrete example value (TUR), the exact format constraint (three-letter ISO 3166-1 alpha-3), and the behavioral consequence of omitting versus supplying the parameter. The schema describes what the parameter is; the description explains what changes based on it.

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 opens with a specific scope statement, 'Country intelligence for export finance,' and precisely defines two return modes (index versus in-depth country report) tied to parameter presence. The resource is unambiguous and the content lists are concrete (risk score, indicators, memberships, reference events, deals). It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, though country-level scope is clearly distinct from the company/entity/deal siblings.

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 clear conditional guidance on how to invoke the tool: omit iso3 for the index, supply it for the deep dive, including an example code (TUR). However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as entity_risk_profile or screening_lookup, nor any exclusions. Mode-level guidance is strong, but cross-tool routing is absent.

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