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

Annotations only cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false). The description goes well beyond that: it names the return fields, discloses the confirmation methodology, and adds honest caveats—includes legal gambling/piracy blocks, absence is not 'accessible', and China is under-counted. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and routing, then return fields, then caveats—each clause earns its place. It is dense and long-ish, but the length is justified by the genuine caveats rather than padding.

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 compensates by describing the returned structures (restriction_map, partial_map, confirmed_block_layer). Combined with routing and caveats, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema fully documents the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 4 for a well-covered one-param tool 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('COMPLETE list of domains a country blocks nationally') plus the scope ('confirmed across >=3 independent networks') and the sub-national distinction. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming check_domain_blocked and get_country_profile, so an agent can select it without opening any 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for a full report') and names the two alternatives with the selecting condition ('for a single domain use check_domain_blocked, for a summary use get_country_profile'). Nothing is left to inference.

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