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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'Public' and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not state how the 9 input parameters relate to the result, whether they are all ignored, or what the record actually contains. The schema covers parameter disposal, but the tool-level description remains opaque.

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 compact noun phrase with no filler words; 'Public' and the ISO reference are both informative. However, it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence and omits an action verb, so it is concise but not a fully structured tool definition.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence is insufficient. The description never states the return format, whether any parameter affects the result, or how an agent should use the tool in practice, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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 every parameter is individually documented with its type and disposal or access behavior, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, which warrants the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies a concrete resource: a public ISO 3166-1 record for IQ, and the tool name reinforces the country-code association. It lacks an explicit verb like 'return' or 'get', but the noun phrase is specific enough to distinguish this lookup from the sibling shape-check tools.

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 about when to invoke this tool or when to prefer a sibling tool such as geo-hint, iana-zones, or timezone. The only usage signal is the implied country-code context, so an agent must infer applicability without explicit direction.

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