uis_compare_countries

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

The description adds that it returns a Markdown comparison table sorted by indicator value, which is useful beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It does not contradict any annotation.

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 concise (3 sentences plus args/return) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be more structured (e.g., bulleted info) but is efficient.

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 an output schema (though not shown) and the complexity of the tool (comparison with country list), the description adequately covers input, output format, and use case. It lacks error handling details but is sufficient for selection.

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 description lists the parameters (indicator_id, country_codes, year) with minimal additional context (e.g., year optional, country codes as list). The schema already provides detailed descriptions for each field, so the description adds limited value.

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 tool compares educational indicators across countries using UNESCO UIS data, and provides an example (Switzerland vs Finland etc.). It is specific and actionable, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like education_benchmark_countries.

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 'Ideal für den direkten internationalen Vergleich' suggests when to use, but there is no guidance on when not to use or mention of alternative tools (e.g., uis_get_education_data for single country queries).

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