list_country_codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the return shape and the semantics of sendAllowed, including that non-allowed codes 'store but are blocked at send time.' This is valuable behavioral context beyond the bare tool name.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool lists; the second explains the return object and the key behavioral distinction. Every word contributes.

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, reference-style tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the standard, the domain, the exact return fields, and the meaning of sendAllowed. The agent has enough information to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and instead provides output semantics. Its mention of the 'country' context is useful but not a parameter definition.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a precise resource ('ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes LeadAce recognizes'), with additional scope defined as 'for a prospect/organization country.' This is clearly distinct from any sibling tool in the set.

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 clear context for when this tool is relevant: when working with country values for prospects/organizations. It also explains the meaningful distinction between sendAllowed and blocked codes, which helps the agent decide how to use the results. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but no competing sibling tool exists.

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