pl_country

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

The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states 'Auth: none needed' and describes the return value. Since annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world traits, the bar for additional disclosure is lower, and this description meets it by covering auth requirements and output shape.

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 extremely concise, using a few short lines to convey purpose, return value, and authentication. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, why it exists, what it returns, and that no auth is needed. No additional context is required.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it goes beyond by mentioning the return format ({country}), providing semantic meaning where the schema is empty.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Echoes') and resource ('caller's detected country'), and explains its purpose ('used by the site for content geo-gating'). This distinguishes it from sibling PL tools, which focus on competitions, teams, matches, etc.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (i.e., to determine the caller's country for geo-gating), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Given the unique function compared to siblings, the implied usage is sufficient.

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