tokportal_list_countries

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds zero behavioral context beyond what annotations already tell the agent. It does not describe the result format, whether the list is static or could change, any pagination (unlikely with no params), or what 'countries' specifically refers to. With annotations carrying the safety burden, the description should at least add some behavioral detail about the output, but it adds nothing. Score is 1 because it fails to add any value beyond the annotations.

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, short, complete sentence with zero waste: 'List available countries.' Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. Perfectly concise for a trivial tool.

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 the tool has zero parameters, robust annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose adequately. It's a simple list operation, and the agent can infer that the output will be a list of country identifiers/names. A 4 is appropriate because while it covers the essentials, a slightly richer description (e.g., 'Returns a list of country codes and names') would improve completeness without being necessary.

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 schema has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description's job with zero parameters is minimal; it simply needs to confirm there are no options. The description does not contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool where the description adds no parameter info because there are none to document.

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' is a clear, specific verb+resource statement. It immediately distinguishes this tool from its many siblings which deal with analytics, bundles, comments, video uploads, accounts, etc. – this is the only tool likely related to listing geographical data.

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 implicitly states when to use this tool: when you need to know the list of available countries. Context signals show 0 parameters, so there's no complexity. The sibling list contains many data retrieval tools, but none other reference countries, so usage is straightforward. A 4 is given because there is no explicit mention of when NOT to use it or prerequisites, but for a simple parameterless list tool, the implicit guidance is sufficient.

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