localization

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so description does not contradict. The description adds context that this configures country context for scraping, but does not detail side effects, persistence, or rate limits. It provides moderate additional insight beyond annotations.

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 very concise: three sentences with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and the example is valuable. It earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (15 parameters, nested objects, openWorldHint=true) and no output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview but does not explain all operations or parameter interactions. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for advanced scenarios.

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 has 100% coverage, baseline 3. The description adds value by giving an example call with specific parameters (operation, countryCode, language) and recommends using 'configure_country' operation, which helps narrow down usage among many parameters.

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's purpose: to scrape geo-restricted content or emulate locale/timezone. It gives concrete examples (region-specific pricing, bypassing geo-blocks) and distinguishes from sibling scraping tools by focusing on context setup.

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 description explicitly says when to use this tool ('when you need to scrape geo-restricted content or emulate a specific locale/timezone') and provides an example operation. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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