get_traffic_by_country_tool

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is read-only, possible side effects, or required permissions. The burden is on the description, and it fails to mention these aspects, leaving the agent without crucial information about the tool's impact.

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 extremely concise, consisting of only two sentences. It conveys the essential purpose and the critical constraint without any redundant or vague language. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (a read-like operation with no output schema provided), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core function and usage constraint. However, it does not mention what the response contains or any error conditions, but these are not strictly required for a basic getter. The lack of output specification slightly reduces completeness.

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 descriptions for all parameters, achieving 100% coverage. Additionally, the description adds a key semantic detail: the mutual exclusivity of zone_id and zone_name. This clarifies a constraint that is not explicitly encoded in the schema, enhancing the agent's ability to correctly set parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get traffic breakdown by country.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_zones or get_zone_analytics, which focus on other aspects. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 a clear usage instruction: 'Provide either zone_id or zone_name, not both.' This tells the agent how to correctly invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when traffic data is needed versus other analytics. Still, the constraint is valuable and goes beyond a generic description.

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