get_country_availability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'Read-only,' which tells the agent the tool does not mutate state. However, it does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, or rate limits, but for a simple getter, this is adequate.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It provides essential info without redundancy or unnecessary detail. Every phrase earns its place, including the read-only note and the pointer to alternative tools.

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?

Given that this is a simple read-only tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it does and what it returns (countries and restriction status). It also guides the agent on related actions, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (track and package_name), so the schema already explains them. The description does not add extra meaning about parameters beyond that, but it does mention the output concept (restricted country list) which indirectly relates to the 'track' parameter. This matches the baseline of 3.

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 gets country availability for a track, including whether the app is restricted to a list and which countries are included. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('countries a track is available in'), and it differentiates from siblings by focusing on targeting status rather than release actions.

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?

Explicitly states that the tool is read-only and directs users who want to change targeting to use the 'country_targeting' argument of create_release or promote_release. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, distinguishing it from modification tools.

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