get_country_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does well: 'Return' signals a safe read, and the description discloses exactly what the response contains (currencies, personalId, constraints, notes). It adds the workflow context of calling before payload emission. It doesn't cover failure behavior for unsupported countries, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences of densely packed information: the purpose plus content enumeration, followed by a single directive. No filler, and the most important constraint (when to call) is placed clearly at the end.

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 lookup with 2 fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description compensates well by detailing what the return value contains. The only minor omission is error handling for unsupported country codes, but the schema already lists the supported countries, so the description is complete for correct invocation.

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%, so both 'country' and 'method' are already well documented in the schema, including the supported values and formatting rules (uppercase, ISO code). The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('country-specific rules') and enumerates the exact content: accepted currencies, personalId formats, payment method constraints, and regulatory notes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_docs and get_endpoint_spec, which serve different lookup purposes.

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 provides an explicit when-to-call directive: 'Call this before emitting any country-specific payload.' This frames the tool as a prerequisite step in the integration flow. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the precondition is clear and actionable.

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