tool_get_cultural_etiquette

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Curated snapshot' is the only hint about the data's nature (pre-packaged, likely not real-time), and there is no word on refresh cadence, per-country coverage depth, or behavior for an unsupported or invalid ISO code.

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 tight sentences with the content list front-loaded, followed by the arg spec. Nothing is padded, though the fragment 'Curated snapshot' is stylistically abrupt rather than informative.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate on inputs but thin on behavioral context — no expected response shape, no coverage caveats, no error guidance. It is the minimum an agent needs to invoke the tool, not more.

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 0%, so the description must supply the parameter meaning, and it does: it defines country_iso2 as an ISO 2-letter code and gives concrete examples ('JP', 'IN', 'TH'). The only missing piece is what happens with non-ISO or lowercase input.

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 a specific resource (cultural etiquette) and enumerates its content areas — dos/don'ts, dress code, greetings, photography rules — so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of distinguishing itself from adjacent siblings like tool_get_tipping_guide or tool_get_language_phrasebook, which also return country-specific local customs.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus a sibling such as get_tipping_guide, get_language_phrasebook, or get_destination_info. 'Curated snapshot' hints the data is static rather than live, but the agent gets no usage condition or exclusion.

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