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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behaviors: a record naming multiple countries counts in each, results are sorted most notable first, and it returns counts and last-time info. These details go beyond a simple listing and help an agent interpret output. It doesn't mention side effects, but as a read-only query this is adequately transparent.

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 tight sentences, no redundancy, and the key purpose is front-loaded. Every clause earns its place; the alternate tools are named but not over-explained.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains what the return values will be (countries, record/notable counts, time of last). It names related sibling tools and provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly, though it does not detail effect of each parameter on results—that is covered by the input schema.

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 describes parameters fully (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that a record counts in every country it names, which clarifies how the underlying data is aggregated. It also implies 'window' ties to since/until/days, and 'notable' relates to min_severity, enriching semantic understanding beyond 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 lists countries with counts and the time of the last record, sorted by notability. It specifies the precise resource (countries in the archive) and differentiates itself from siblings like geo_snapshot and geo_records by positioning itself as the country-selection step.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool to pick a country before calling geo_snapshot or geo_records instead of guessing. This provides a clear when-to-use directive and names the alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role in the workflow.

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