country_info_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the upstream data source (Nager.Date) and the shape of returned fields, which is useful but minimal. No mention of lookup failure behavior for an unknown country code.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, lists the returned fields inline, and names the source. No filler.

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 simple read-only lookup with full annotation and schema coverage and no output schema, listing the returned fields and source is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the absence of sibling disambiguation among the many other country_* tools.

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 100%, and the single parameter is documented as an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code with examples. The description adds nothing beyond confirming that a country identifier is the input; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('country details'), and even the fields returned (borders, languages, official name), plus the upstream source Nager.Date. However it does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling country_by_code or country_by_name, so the agent cannot tell which to pick from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of alternatives, despite sibling tools like country_by_code, country_by_name, country_by_region, country_all and country_flag_url that clearly overlap. The agent must infer selection from the name.

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