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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which the description does not contradict. Beyond that, it discloses important behavior: the section-outline fallback when a record exceeds the response budget, that nothing is truncated, and that archive calls always return a page regardless of budget. These details go well beyond the annotation coverage and give an agent accurate expectations for edge cases.

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 about 120 words and packs substantive information into each sentence. It opens with the core purpose, then explains the archive and sections selectors, and closes with the budget fallback. There is minor redundancy with the schema (e.g., mutual exclusivity), but overall it is efficiently structured without fluff, earning a 4 rather than a 5 because a few concepts (like 'response budget') are explained only implicitly.

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?

For a tool with three parameters including a nested object and an output schema, the description covers all relevant behavior: what the profile returns, the archive page structure, the sections selection, and the budget fallback. Since an output schema exists, the description need not detail return fields. No critical usage aspect is missing, making it complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters with detailed explanations (e.g., ISO3 format, archive list enum values, offset/limit defaults). The tool description adds little new semantic info; it restates the mutual exclusivity of sections/archive, which is also in the schema. Since the schema carries the load, a baseline of 3 is appropriate—the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb ('Fetch a country profile'), the resource ('from ReliefWeb by ISO3 code'), and enumerates the profile contents (overview, humanitarian situation summary, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being country-specific, so an agent can immediately identify its purpose without ambiguous phrasing.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the two selectors ('mutually exclusive', 'use archive for those') and explains the archive mode's purpose relative to the profile. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like reliefweb_get_disaster, though the resource type makes that implicit. It offers clear internal usage but stops short of saying 'use this when you need a country profile, not a disaster'.

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