get_country_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: name matching is exact and case-insensitive, and the result is 'a current snapshot only' (no history). It does not describe pagination or response shape, but for a read-only tool this is solid added value.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the matching rule and the sibling exclusion. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only, 5-parameter tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies the missing behavioral pieces (exact case-insensitive matching, snapshot-only, war exclusion). It does not enumerate what facts are returned, but with no output schema and a well-annotated read operation, this is nearly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics beyond the schema by specifying that names are matched exactly and case-insensitively, which clarifies the country_name parameter's matching behavior, and reinforces that regions are optional (include_regions). That justifies a bump above baseline.

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 (get) and resource (country overview), and explicitly scopes it to 'selected verified facts about a country plus, optionally, its regions.' It names the sibling it excludes (get_country_wars), so an agent can differentiate. The only weakness is that 'selected verified facts' leaves the actual content of the payload undefined.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion and alternative: 'It does not report war relationships — use get_country_wars for those.' That is real routing guidance. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over other siblings like get_region or get_company_overview, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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