Compare countries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description consolidates the default behavior (role "asylum", 10-year window) into one readable sentence, which is genuinely useful, but most of its content (normalization options, worldbank requirement) is already documented in the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then defaults, then the advanced normalization option. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers action, scope, defaults, and the key optional mode. It could be slightly stronger by pointing to which sibling tools handle adjacent needs (e.g. single-country profiles or rankings).

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%, including enum meanings and defaults, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description restates country count, the default metric, and normalize_by targets, adding no format or syntax beyond what the schema already documents — baseline 3.

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 (compare) and resource (a displacement metric) with explicit scope: 2–5 countries over a year range. The multi-country comparison framing distinguishes it from per-country siblings like country_profile and search_country without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear default context (refugees hosted, role "asylum", last 10 years) and explains when to reach for normalize_by (to compare per-capita/per-GDP rather than absolute counts). It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use this one.

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