Info Pays

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say the operation is read-only/no side effects, what happens for non-African or unknown country names, whether results are cached or live, or how the optional year affects holiday data. Only the enumeration of returned fields adds any behavioral signal.

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 content is front-loaded and short in substance, but it is given twice in full (French then English), which doubles length without adding information. Neither sentence is wasteful individually, but the duplication costs efficiency.

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 a fully documented schema and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, so the remaining gap is behavioral and routing context. It never states read-only semantics, behavior on unknown countries, or how it relates to sibling lookups, which leaves real ambiguity for an agent choosing between tools.

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 each parameter (pays, annee, champs) already has a clear description, so baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of currency and holidays loosely maps to the 'champs' selector and 'annee' parameter but adds no syntax, defaults, or validation detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retourne les informations clés d'un pays africain') and enumerates the returned fields (dial code, currency, holidays), which is enough to distinguish it from pure-action siblings. It does not name or differentiate itself from close siblings like convertir_devise or valider_telephone, which also operate on country/phone/currency data.

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 by the field list: an agent can infer this is a reference lookup for country metadata. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of alternatives (e.g. use convertir_devise for rate conversion, valider_telephone for number validation), and no stated scope restriction beyond 'African country'.

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