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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's marginal job is interpretation of the results. It delivers that: scores run 0-100 with higher meaning more risk, and ranks are among all countries in the Criora Atlas with 1 being the highest risk. That is genuinely useful semantics beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, followed by the necessary interpretation of the score and rank scales. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return structure, and it correctly focuses on the meaning of the score/rank values. It is nearly complete; it could note behavior for invalid or unknown country codes, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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% and the single 'countries' parameter is fully documented in the schema (ISO3 codes or English names, minItems 2, maxItems 10). The description adds no parameter detail, 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 states a specific operation: comparing several countries side by side on overall risk plus each risk dimension, with ranks. That is a clear verb+resource. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (e.g. get_country_profile for a single country), so it falls short of the top score.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'several countries side by side' — an agent can infer this is for multi-country comparison rather than single-country lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling named.

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