get_country_specific_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions an optional feature to fetch live metadata for comparison, which is useful. However, it does not specify if the tool is read-only, any required permissions, or potential side effects. The description is partially transparent but leaves gaps.

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 concise (3 sentences) and well-structured. It starts with the main action, then lists what is returned, followed by supported countries in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has an output schema, so detailed return value documentation is not needed. The description covers the main returned components (fields, picklists, compliance, rules) and mentions an optional feature. Given the moderate complexity, it is sufficiently complete, though the optional live metadata feature could be elaborated.

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 40% (only country_code and include_live_metadata have descriptions). The tool description adds context for country_code by listing valid codes, but does not explain auth parameters (data_center, auth_user_id, auth_password). Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but only partly does.

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 purpose: 'Get country-specific fields for a PerGlobalInfo entity.' It lists the supported countries and what is returned (required fields, common picklists, compliance notes, typical business rules). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_entity_metadata or get_picklist_values which serve different purposes.

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 use when needing country-specific field definitions for PerGlobalInfo, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Siblings like validate_country_compliance or get_picklist_values could be relevant in related contexts, but no guidance is provided.

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