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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the status semantics (live = data served, planned = announced but not served) and the free_access flag semantics (true when no API key is needed, false when one is required, today Algeria only). This is exactly the kind of auth/availability context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the body is a very long enumeration of every country's datasets and mapped tools, and the critical 'Use it first...' guidance is buried at the end. The dataset inventory is relevant but oversized for a one-parameter list tool, so it reads as dense rather than wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape — and it does, spelling out every field per country plus the status and free_access flags. Combined with the usage guidance and the note that no country argument is accepted, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'lang' enum is fully documented in the schema (fr default, ar, en), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's only addition is 'It takes no country, only the optional lang', which is a mild restatement of what the schema already shows. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List the countries this server has business data for') and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (ISO code, names, languages, currency, status, datasets). It is unmistakably distinct from every sibling (list_wilayas, list_jo_years, get_activity_code, etc.), which are country-specific lookups. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

States explicitly 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 further maps each dataset to the sibling tools that serve it (list_jo_years/get_jo_issue, search_activity_codes, calculate_ifu, etc.), giving concrete routing guidance rather than leaving alternatives implicit.

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