suggest_country

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description is minimal, only stating it searches by name and ISO codes. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. It lacks context on rate limits, auth requirements, or behavior on no results.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and key details, adhering to good conciseness.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers the input domain. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not hint at what the search returns (e.g., full country details, codes, etc.). It references ISO 3166 but leaves the output format ambiguous.

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 50% (only 'query' parameter has a description). The tool description reinforces that 'query' accepts country names or ISO codes, adding the ISO 3166 reference. The 'count' parameter is not mentioned in the description; however, its purpose is inferable from the name and default value. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'countries', specifying valid identifiers (name, ISO alpha-2/alpha-3 code). It references ISO 3166, adding precision. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that search other entity types like companies or addresses.

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 usage for country lookups but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., suggest_address, geolocate_address). It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools are preferred.

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