tool_list_advisories_by_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains parameter meanings but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any side effects, sorting, pagination, or output format. The behavioral traits are mostly implied.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, an example query, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, with the purpose front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention the output format (e.g., list of country names), but what is provided is sufficient for an agent to understand the core functionality.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains the range 1-4, default 3, and defines what each level represents (3=Reconsider Travel, 4=Do Not Travel). This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'Min Level' label.

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 it lists countries at advisory level X or above, with a concrete example query 'What countries should I avoid right now?'. This verb+resource combination is specific and differentiates from sibling tool_get_travel_advisory which targets a single country.

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?

The description provides an example query but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_get_travel_advisory or tool_visa_free_destinations. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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