client_getCountryCode

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, side effects, or session requirements, making the behavioral profile incomplete.

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 sentence with no filler and is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful information, crossing from conciseness into under-specification.

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 has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the returned country code represents, how the optional number interacts with sessionId, or what happens when number is omitted. The existence of sibling contact_getCountryCode is also unaddressed, leaving the context incomplete.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (sessionId and number), so the schema already provides the basic meaning. The description adds no extra semantic detail, and the schema's 'Number or ID' for the optional number parameter remains ambiguous, but this is not the description's failure given the high coverage.

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 'Get the country code' with a [Client] prefix, naming a clear verb and resource. However, it does not specify what entity the code is for or how this differs from the sibling tool contact_getCountryCode, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus contact_getCountryCode or other lookup tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions, so the agent is left to infer usage context.

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