unifi_list_countries

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: it is a global list, returns ISO alpha-2 codes and names, and clarifies the downstream usage. This adds meaningful context without contradicting the 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?

Two concise sentences deliver the global scope, return shape, and usage guidance with no filler. The key purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation, the description plus the complete input schema, annotations, and output schema provide everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool. It states what is returned, why the result matters, and how to use it.

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?

All three parameters (limit, filter, offset) are already fully documented in the input schema with descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds value mainly for the returned code field rather than the parameters, so the schema carries the burden and the description does not need to compensate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource, 'countries/regions (global)', and ties it to a concrete use case: geo-IP firewall rules. The scope and purpose clearly distinguish it from the many sibling list/get tools.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: when listing countries for geo-IP firewall rules, and explains the returned code should be used when building firewall policies matching by country. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the top tier.

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