country_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states 'Get a country by name', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it could include critical details without becoming verbose. It achieves conciseness at the cost of completeness.

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 presence of many country-related sibling tools and the absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives or how the tool behaves (e.g., case sensitivity, exact vs partial match).

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 two parameters (name, fullText) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving 'fullText' undefined. For a boolean parameter, the lack of explanation (e.g., 'set to true for exact match') is a significant 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'a country by name', and the source 'REST Countries'. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'by name'.

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 the many country-related siblings (e.g., country_by_code, country_by_region). The name implies usage but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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