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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior — results are ordered newest first and the filter takes a Polish country name — but it omits return shape, pagination/limits, and whether an absent filter returns everything.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and ordering front-loaded and the filter semantics attached directly to it. No filler.

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 simple single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but an agent can't tell the result shape or whether results are paginated/capped, and there's no signal on behavior for an invalid country name.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that 'country' takes a Polish name and gives the example "Włochy". It could still clarify matching behavior (exact vs. case-insensitive), but the key ambiguity is resolved.

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?

It names the resource (episodes), the ordering (newest first), and the optional filter. The listing verb is only implied, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_countries, but an agent can tell what it returns.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'optionally filtered to a country' suggests calling it with or without the argument. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer list_countries or get_location, and no prerequisites stated.

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