get_country_summary

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the tool's output structure (total entries, domain breakdown, etc.) and its intended purpose (coverage assessment), giving the agent a mental model of behavior without contradicting any annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a bullet-like list of outputs. Every sentence contributes meaning—no fluff or repetition of schema/annotations.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description fully covers what the summary contains and when to use it, serving as an adequate return-structure guide. Given the lack of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the key fields. No critical context is missing.

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 provides a full description for the only parameter ('ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code, lowercase'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('country-level summary') while enumerating the contents (total entries, domain breakdown, average fix rate, most-recent updates). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_errors_by_country or get_domain_stats, which focus on different granularities.

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?

Provides a clear use case: 'Use this to assess coverage for a country before relying on deadends.dev for trip / business / legal planning advice.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it. Absence of exclusions aligns with a score of 4.

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