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

Beyond annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: unmarking an unmarked country is not an error, and the operation lowers the user's score, warranting confirmation. This complements the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, parameter format, and key behavioral cautions. Every sentence provides distinct value with no filler or redundancy.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, accepted input format, idempotency, side effects, and a safety confirmation requirement. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the description essentially restates the schema's 'ISO-2 code or name' parameter semantics. It adds no new detail such as case sensitivity, normalization, or error behavior beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Unmark a country', and explicitly ties it to undo add_country. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling operations like remove_place and remove_region.

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 a clear context: use this to undo add_country and unmark a country. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or alternative tools, but naming the inverse operation gives sufficient guidance for a simple 1-parameter tool.

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