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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results come from a static built-in table rather than live probing, and the output is explicitly not legal advice. It stops short of describing freshness or coverage limits of that table.

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 the usage trigger and followed by the nature of the return value. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: when to use it, what it returns conceptually (a high-level snapshot), its data source, and its limitations. No material gap remains.

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% and the single 'country' parameter is already documented with an example ("Country, e.g. UAE"). The description adds no format, matching, or naming conventions beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource — checking internet restrictions (VoIP blocks, firewalls) in a country — and signals the answer comes from a built-in table, which an agent can distinguish from live-measurement siblings like run_speed_test or check_dns_leaks. It does not explicitly differentiate from adjacent lookup tools such as get_country_fact_sheet or list_country_networks, which slightly caps the 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?

"Use when the user asks about internet restrictions in a country" gives a clear trigger condition for invocation. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the triggering context is unambiguous.

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