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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful operational detail: the cost of $0.01 USDC via x402, which an agent must know before invoking a paid call. It doesn't describe response format or edge cases, but with strong annotations that is acceptable.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and output list, then ends with cost. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description summarizes the key return fields (ISO codes, currency, internet code, calling code) and cost. The schema documents the required and optional parameters. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though a formal response shape is not provided.

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% for both parameters ('country' and 'algorithm'), so the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Standardize') and resource ('country name') and enumerates distinct return fields ('ISO codes (2/3-letter, 3-digit), currency details, internet code, and calling code'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling interzoid_country_standard, which does not promise comprehensive info.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description doesn't name the sibling interzoid_country_standard or other alternatives, nor does it state criteria for selecting this tool over simpler country normalization or currency-specific tools. The output list implies comprehensive use, but the selection logic is left to inference.

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