Paises disponiveis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: rate limit (6 queries/minute), result stability, and the recommendation to store the result. It does not describe the response shape, but the explicit operational constraints are strong contextual disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the code-usage and caching/rate-limit notes. Zero filler.

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?

Complete enough for a zero-param read-only list tool: purpose, output field guidance, rate limit, and caching advice. It lacks any response structure description, minor for a no-output-schema tool but the field-level guidance partly covers it.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds cross-tool semantics by explaining that the returned "code" field is ISO format and should be passed to other tools, which is useful despite there being no input params.

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 verb and resource: lists countries that have numbers in stock, plus a per-country service count. That is concrete beyond the title, though it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like list_services.

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?

Gives real usage guidance: tells the agent to reuse the "code" field in other tools, and warns to cache the result because it changes little. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are named, but context is clear.

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