list_rate_card_countries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation returns a list of countries/sheets, implying a read-only, side-effect-free action. However, it does not explicitly state safety (e.g., that it makes no changes) or any potential caveats like pagination or response structure. For a simple listing tool, the disclosure is adequate but not rich; it does not contradict any hooks since none exist.

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?

A single sentence with no waste. The main action ('Returns which countries/sheets exist') is front-loaded, and the use-case clause ('in case the exact country name needs to be confirmed...') provides context without redundancy. Ideal conciseness.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an available output schema, the description covers the core function and the scenario in which it should be used. It doesn't describe output formatting, but that is presumably handled by the output schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect in general terms.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (no parameters to document). With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no inputs are needed, and nothing is missing from the parameter side.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('countries/sheets in the rate card'), and explicitly ties it to a downstream purpose ('before calling get_rate_card'). It differentiates itself from at least one sibling by indicating this is the pre-step for confirming exact names, making its role unambiguous.

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?

It provides a clear usage condition: use this when the exact country name needs to be confirmed before calling get_rate_card. This implicitly tells the agent when it is appropriate (when names might be uncertain) and when it might be unnecessary (if names are already known). It does not mention alternatives like resolve_rate_card_country, but the guidance is explicit enough for a zero-parameter listing tool.

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