rybbit_get_excluded_countries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Get' and the auth requirement ('Requires the sites:read scope'). It doesn't elaborate on return format or error behavior, but for a simple getter the core traits are covered.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by the scope requirement. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary information.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description is complete for a simple one-parameter getter. It specifies what the tool returns (list of country codes) and the required scope, which is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with the siteId parameter described as 'Site ID or identifier'. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and resource ('the list of country codes excluded from tracking for a site'), clearly identifying what the tool returns. It distinguishes from siblings like rybbit_get_excluded_ips by specifically mentioning country codes.

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 when to use this tool (when needing excluded country codes for a site) and explicitly states the required scope (sites:read), which is a prerequisite. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the explicit differentiation seen in top-tier examples.

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