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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral quirks: the 'ABSENT, never zero' semantic distinction, the default sorting behavior, and the warning that an unassessed country would incorrectly rank first if treated as zero. It also explains that maxRisk always filters on the composite, which prevents misinterpretation when sorting by other dimensions.

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 moderately sized but every sentence earns its place: scale, dimensions, real-world interpretation, default ordering, coverage, missing-data semantics, and integration philosophy. It front-loads the most decision-critical fact (higher is worse) and then moves to the comparison-relevant nuance. It is slightly dense, but not padded.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete. It explains the scale, the missing-data encoding, default order, and the conceptual importance of copingCapacity. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the output row structure beyond the fact that the composite and three dimensions are returned, but the output schema presumably covers that.

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 meaning for the composite scale and the copingCapacity dimension, but it does not elaborate on the exact format of the country parameter (ISO alpha-2 is already in the schema) or the numeric constraints. The description's additional context about sort dimensions is useful but not essential; the schema already documents each parameter.

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 the exact source (INFORM Risk, EC JRC), the 0-10 composite scale with the higher-is-worse direction, and the three component dimensions. It names the specific resource and the verb 'compare', and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rank_livability and compare_countries by stating it is deliberately not folded into other rankings.

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 concrete selection context: it is the tool for risk flags, it covers 191 countries wider than the site's country pages, and it notes the safest-first default sorting. It also states that the tool is not folded into other rankings, which implicitly tells an agent when not to use it for composite livability/cost comparisons. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for the exclusion case, but the 'deliberately not folded into any other ranking here' sentence is a clear usage boundary.

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