compare_countries

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'shows differences' but does not specify if the tool is read-only, what the output format is, any side effects, or data freshness. Critical missing details for a comparison tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with the verb 'Compare' front-loaded. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or vague language.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain return values or structure. It mentions 'blocking patterns, risk levels, and affected services' but lacks detail on format, data types, or how to interpret results. Incomplete for a comparison 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both country parameters (ISO codes). The tool description adds context about comparison but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond 'first' and 'second'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool compares censorship status between two countries, specifying differences in blocking patterns, risk levels, and affected services. It distinguishes the tool from generic comparison tools like atlas_compare, though sibling tools like get_high_risk_countries might overlap.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as atlas_compare or get_censorship_index. The description does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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