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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the purpose and data source, but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication needs, or potential limitations (e.g., only specific country names or ISO formats). The description gives minimal behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence with the key information front-loaded ('Country Detail'). No unnecessary words; it is efficient and to the point.

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?

The tool has a simple schema and output schema, but the description lacks usage guidance, behavioral notes, and differentiation from the sibling 'country' tool. It also doesn't clarify that the parameter is expected despite being optional in the schema. An agent would need to infer too much to call it correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage, but the description adds value by stating the 'q' parameter accepts a country name or ISO code. However, it doesn't specify the expected format (e.g., full name vs. code, case sensitivity) or whether the parameter is required despite being optional in the schema. It partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 the tool provides country details (capital, region, income) and specifies input by name or ISO, with a data source (World Bank). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic country tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'lookup'.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling 'country' tool. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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