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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value in the absence of an output schema by naming the returned fields and defining the status semantics (live = data is served, planned = announced and not served yet), though it says nothing about shape, ordering or size of the response.

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 core purpose and the when-to-use rule are front-loaded and clear, but the body balloons into a per-country inventory (Algeria's twelve datasets, Tunisia and Morocco's five each, gazette tool cross-references) that is largely unnecessary for tool selection and will stale as data changes.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the entry fields and status definitions. Combined with the discovery-first usage rule and the covered single parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the enum meanings and the 'fr' default. The description only restates that lang is optional, adding nothing the schema does not already carry, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('List the countries this server has business data for') and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: ISO code, multilingual names, languages, currency, status and datasets. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_wilaya, get_tax_rates or list_jo_years, which operate inside a single country.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it: 'Use it first to see which countries and datasets exist before asking another tool for a country, or after a call came back country_not_available.' It also rules out the wrong invocation by noting it takes no country, only the optional lang.

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