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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the probe is live and free, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, response format, or what a health result contains. For a read-only probe this is a meaningful gap.

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 very short and front-loads the core idea, but 'FREE.' repeats the already-stated 'free' and functions as marketing rather than useful instruction. Structure is fragmentary rather than deliberately concise.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least clarify the slug parameter and what the health probe returns. It leaves both undocumented, so an agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 0% for the single slug parameter. The description's phrase 'one country' implies the slug identifies a country, adding minimal meaning, but it does not explain the expected format, source, or behavior when the default empty string is used.

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 states a specific operation: a live health probe for one country. It is clear enough to identify the tool's resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like xrplme_get_country_data or xrplme_get_country_schema beyond the word 'health probe'.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no preconditions. 'Live free' hints at availability but does not help an agent choose between this tool and the many other country/survey/research tools.

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