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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely behavioral detail beyond the schema — that bands are marked as cross-checked by two independent sources or single-source — which is useful provenance context, but it says nothing about error handling for unknown countries or response shape.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource scope before listing payload contents. The enumeration is dense but each item carries information; the only weakness is that it reads as a field dump rather than a prioritized statement of purpose.

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, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly by naming every band family and technology generation reported. For a simple read-only, one-parameter lookup with complete annotations, this is close to sufficient; only edge-case behavior (unknown or ambiguous country) is unaddressed.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the accepted formats (ISO alpha-2, English or Chinese name). The description adds no additional meaning about the country argument, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Mobile networks of one country') and enumerates exactly what is returned (4G/LTE and 5G/NR bands, core bands, 2G/3G/5G SA/RedCap/LTE-M/NB-IoT states, switch-off dates). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like check_bands, list_coverage, or iot_readiness, which plausibly overlap with the band and technology-state content.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when another sibling (e.g., check_bands for a single band query or iot_readiness for IoT readiness) would be preferable, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer applicability purely from the payload description.

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