country_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data provenance ('dated CELLAR snapshot'), defines edge-case behavior for territories recorded under another country and unmatched inputs (with suggestions), and includes a disclaimer. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or error-handling beyond unknown_country, keeping it from a 5.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then unpacks return values and input formats. Every clause adds information, though the single paragraph is long for a one-parameter lookup; structure is acceptable but not maximally crisp.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fully explains the possible return values and their conditions, the accepted input formats, the data source, and a legal disclaimer. An agent has everything needed to call the tool and interpret its output correctly.

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 100% and the schema already gives concrete examples ('BR', 'BRA', 'Brazil', 'Viet Nam'). The description adds the formal standard names (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, alpha-3, English name), which is useful but minimal; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the specific resource (Commission-assigned country risk level under Article 29 of EUDR) and enumerates the exact return values (low, high, standard, not_determined, unknown_country). This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools, which cover commodity codes, scope, dates, and sources.

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 implied by the return-value semantics and input format, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer that this is the lookup tool for country risk classification.

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