get--v3-domains-domain-tag-countries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. The phrase 'List of' implies a read operation, but without explicit confirmation, it remains insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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, efficient phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than clarity. The structure is appropriate for its length, but it lacks the necessary detail to be fully helpful.

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's complexity (one parameter with no schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the parameter, the tool's behavior, or the output format. For a tool that likely interacts with domain-specific data, this minimal description is inadequate for effective use.

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 one required parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about this parameter. The description does not mention the parameter at all, offering no compensation for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent guessing about the parameter's purpose and format.

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 'List of supported country codes' is vague—it states what the output is rather than what the tool does. It lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'fetch') and does not specify the resource or context (e.g., for a domain or tag). This makes it tautological, as it restates the tool's name without clarifying its function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'get--v3-domain-aggregates-countries' suggest similar functionality, but the description offers no differentiation or context for selection. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction.

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