rb209_field_country

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose a read-only GET operation and the id-based filtering behavior. However, it says nothing about behavior for invalid or missing ids, response format details, or whether 'country text' is localized; these gaps are moderate but not severe for a simple lookup.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the endpoint before explaining behavior. It has no filler, though the phrasing 'supplied corresponding country id' is slightly redundant and awkward.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the description is almost complete: it tells the agent what to call, what parameter to supply, and what kind of value will be returned. It falls just short of fully complete because there is no output schema and no mention of not-found or error behavior, but the low complexity keeps this from being a significant gap.

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 already documents countryId with a description, and schema coverage is 100%. The description's 'supplied corresponding country id' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description explicitly names the HTTP method (GET), the resource (/api/Field/Country/{countryId}), and the exact purpose: returning individual country text for a given id. 'Individual' distinguishes it from the plural sibling rb209_field_countries, so an agent can select it correctly without inspecting schemas.

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 clearly implies this tool is for the case where a specific countryId is known and the corresponding country text is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the individual-vs-collection contrast with sibling rb209_field_countries provides sufficient contextual guidance.

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