Google Countries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond them: the endpoint is free, so it costs no credits. It says nothing about result size, pagination, or matching behavior.

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 short sentences with no wasted words, and the retrieval outcome is front-loaded. The first sentence merely restates the title, which is the one redundancy in an otherwise tight definition.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, and the description states what you get back (country codes) and that it is free. Only sibling differentiation is missing, which is minor for a narrowly scoped reference lookup.

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 100%, with both 'query' (case-insensitive match on code or name) and 'fields' (comma-separated projection, no credit change) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Search Google countries and retrieve country codes'), and the 'Finder' naming plus sibling names (finder_google_languages, finder_google_locations) let an agent infer the domain. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from those close siblings.

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 guidance on when to choose this over finder_google_locations or finder_google_languages, nor any stated prerequisite or exclusion. The purpose implies usage ('search countries') but nothing steers selection among the many search siblings.

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