resolve_country_group_membership

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and non-exhaustive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying acceptable input formats (canonical codes, WB region codes, common spellings), which aids correct invocation.

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 two sentences: the first defines the primary function, the second lists acceptable inputs. Every sentence adds value 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?

The description adequately covers the input parameter and acceptable formats. Despite the presence of an output schema, it lacks mention of error handling for invalid inputs, but overall it is sufficient for a straightforward resolution tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'group' parameter accepts canonical codes, WB region codes, and common spellings, providing concrete examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 resolves curated group codes to their ISO3 member lists. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_country_groups and summarize_country_group by focusing on resolving codes to members, not listing or summarizing.

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 implicitly tells when to use the tool: when you have a group code or common spelling and need the ISO3 member list. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., for non-curated groups), but the context makes it clear enough.

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