Find Countries

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

Annotations already disclose that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds that the tool returns country codes, but it does not explain behavior around partial matches, aggregate handling, or result limits. This is acceptable but minimal given the 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 description is a single efficient sentence with no filler and places the core purpose first. It is concise and easy to scan, though it misses an opportunity to clarify a couple of ambiguous parameters without becoming bloated.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety, so the main gap is parameter semantics. The description is adequate for a simple search tool but leaves includeAggregates and pagination/limit behavior ambiguous, which an agent may need when invoking the tool.

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 carry parameter meaning. It conveys that query relates to name, plus region and incomeLevel, but it leaves limit and includeAggregates completely unexplained. With five parameters, this is insufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('find'), a clear resource ('World Bank country codes'), and the available search dimensions ('by name, region, or income level'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on indicators, profiles, or comparisons.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs country codes filtered by name, region, or income level. However, it provides no explicit contrast with siblings such as get_country_profile or compare_countries, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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