Get Country Availability

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

The description explicitly says 'Read', signaling a non-mutating operation, which is important because no annotations are present. It does not disclose additional behavioral context such as response shape, permissions, or edge cases, but for a simple read query this is minimally acceptable.

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 a single sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description plus schema covers the essential calling information. It is brief but not missing critical operational details, though it does not help the agent choose among closely related sibling tools.

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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the input schema, including track name examples and package name format. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 read operation and resource ('which countries a track is distributed to'), so an agent can tell this is a read-only query for distribution coverage. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar-looking siblings such as list_locale_coverage or get_releases.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the selection decision entirely to inference.

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