surveybridge_list_countries

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 mentions a 'bounded response' but does not explain what that means (e.g., default limit, pagination, max size), nor does it state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or how results are ordered. The disclosure is too vague for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately short for a simple list tool, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting necessary detail rather than being maximally 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, 0% parameter description coverage, and no usage guidance, the description is too thin for a tool that an agent must invoke correctly. It should at least explain the limit and query parameters and clarify the read-only, bounded nature of the call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It only alludes to a 'bounded response' (hinting at limit) but says nothing about the query parameter's filtering behavior, accepted syntax, or default values. This leaves an agent guessing about how to use the inputs.

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 names a specific action ('Discover') and resource ('official DHS country IDs and metadata'), making the tool's purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_surveys or search_indicators by focusing on countries, though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'Discover official DHS country IDs' hints at a lookup use case, but an agent must infer that from the name and description alone.

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