country

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose what data the tool returns (economy, population, government, provinces), which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only status, response structure, or potential limitations, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key output contents. There is no wasted wording, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with only one input parameter, the omission of any explanation of that parameter is a significant gap. The description covers the output scope but not how to specify the target country, which is essential for correct invocation. An output schema exists, but it does not compensate for unclear input semantics.

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 has a single 'tag' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description never explains what 'tag' means or how it selects the country. The default value 'player' is also unexplained, making it impossible for an agent to know what value to provide without external context.

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 that the tool provides a complete summary of a single country, enumerating key content areas (economy, population, government, province list). It implies distinction from sector-specific siblings like economy or politics, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrasing 'complete summary' implies the tool is for getting a broad, multi-aspect view of one country rather than sector-specific details. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as overview or analyze_situation, nor does it give exclusions.

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