tokportal_list_countries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully describe the behavioral traits. The description adds minimal context beyond the title, so the bar is met but not exceeded—scored 3.

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 accurately and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

With 0 parameters, no output schema, and exhaustive annotations, the description is complete for this low-complexity tool. It would benefit from clarifying the return format (e.g., 'Returns list of country codes and names'), but the current form is adequate.

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?

There are 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents everything. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it also doesn't mention the output format or whether countries are filtered (e.g., by region). Baseline is 3, and the conciseness earns a 4 for not adding unnecessary clutter.

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 'List available countries' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (available countries). It is distinct from sibling tools, which handle bundles, accounts, analytics, videos, and other resources.

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 no guidance on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools that list countries, this omission is acceptable, but the lack of any usage context makes it a 3.

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