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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly says the operation is 'counted, not written', and it defines boundaries by excluding 'narrative, score and forecast'. It does not disclose the output structure, how 'notable' is determined, or cross-section pagination, but it reveals the key read-only and scope characteristics.

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 sentences with no filler. The core aggregation and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the exclusions and read-only nature are delivered in the second. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a clear inventory of the returned content areas and explicitly states what the call does not produce. Combined with 100% schema parameter coverage, an agent has enough to select and invoke it, though the exact meaning of 'notable records' and 'against its own normal' is left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the conceptual context of one country and aggregated sections, but it does not explain how days, limit, since, or until interact with the three result groups beyond what the schema already says.

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 opening 'One country in one call' plus the enumeration 'record counts by sector and by feed, its notable records, and every measured series' states a specific consolidated listing resource. It also names the sibling origin tools (geo_records, geo_activity, geo_series), making it clearly distinguishable as a single-country aggregate rather than a general tool.

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 explicitly frames the tool as 'geo_records, geo_activity and geo_series for a single country', so an agent can infer it is the right choice when a consolidated per-country snapshot is needed. It does not give explicit when-not conditions or name an alternative for multi-country or analytical needs, but the usage context is clear.

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