check_country_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the core operation (checks recognition) and implies no side effects, but offers no details on case sensitivity, invalid input handling, or return format nuances. For a simple validator this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The operation and the domain are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 validator with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the input and the determination being made. It could add case-sensitivity guidance or point to list_country_codes for enumeration, but these are optional given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema provides only 'code' as a string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by defining the parameter's purpose and domain: a candidate ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code. Naming the standard conveys meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 'Check' and identifies the exact resource: a recognized ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code. This clearly differentiates it from sibling check tools like check_currency_code or check_icd_code by naming the standard.

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 implies its use case—validate whether a single code is a recognized country code—but does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_country_codes or when not to use this tool. The absence of exclusions leaves routing to the agent's inference.

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