list_countries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that it lists countries with their IDs, but does not describe return format, pagination, sorting, authentication needs, or any side effects. For a read operation, this is minimal and leaves significant gaps in understanding what the tool actually returns or how it behaves with parameters.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and optional parameters, the description should explain return values and parameter usage. It does not mention the structure of the response, how limit/filter work, or any other context needed for correct invocation. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 description coverage is 50%: only 'filter' has a description, while 'limit' does not. The tool description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It fails to clarify how 'limit' behaves or how 'filter' interacts with the list, which is a notable gap.

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 lists countries from Dolibarr with their IDs, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the country resource, which is unique among the siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives.

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 usage when one needs to retrieve countries, and there is no other country-listing tool among siblings. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites, leaving usage context mostly implied.

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