List countries supported by the benefits safety net calculator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns every country id and currency, which signals a read-only listing behavior and the lack of filtering. However, it does not describe response shape details, ordering, potential errors, or any limitations, which keeps this at a mid-range score.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action, the resource returned, and the parent calculator context.

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 this is a simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description clearly states what the agent gets back: every country id and its currency. A minor gap is not specifying whether ids are country codes or human-readable names, but this is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description needs to explain no inputs. The description correctly makes no parameter claims and instead focuses on the output, matching the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('Returns') with a clear resource ('every country id (and its currency)') and links it to the exact calculator tool, benefits_safety_net_calculator. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling list tools like list_take_home_platforms and list_payout_platforms.

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 phrase 'supported by benefits_safety_net_calculator' implies the tool is for retrieving countries relevant to that calculator, which gives context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative list tools or state when not to use this one, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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