worldbank_country

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't state any behavioral traits beyond the code/omit behavior, but for a simple read-only lookup that is largely acceptable. However, it adds minimal beyond the schema, landing it at 2.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action. Slightly terse, missing potential clarifying detail, but well-structured.

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?

A simple 1-parameter, zero-required tool with full schema coverage. The description is adequate for its simplicity, but it could mention output characteristics or distinguish from similar country siblings. No output schema exists, so some return expectations could be useful.

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 already fully documents the 'code' parameter with ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 or alpha-3 format and its default. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; the description adds an example ('US, GB') and 'omit for all' but no new 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) and resource (country info) from a named source (World Bank). It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like country_info_detail, country_by_code, or country_all, but the verb+resource are clear.

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 phrase 'omit for all' implies the default/fallback behavior, which hints at usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance despite many country-related siblings (country_by_code, country_info_detail, country_all).

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