search_countries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search criteria (partial name, ISO code, slug) but does not mention whether results are approximate, case‑sensitive, or what happens when no match is found. The return format (e.g., list of countries with identifiers) is also omitted.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, and the second immediately provides usage context. Perfectly front‑loaded and efficient.

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 description covers purpose and usage context well, but with no output schema, it should describe what the tool returns (e.g., a list of countries with names, codes, slugs). It also lacks details about behavior like default limit, language effect on output, or result field semantics.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms that the query parameter accepts partial names or codes and gives examples in the schema, but it adds little extra semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 searches destinations by partial name, ISO code, or slug, and explicitly positions it as a discovery/disambiguation step before calling get_travel_advisory. This distinguishes it from sibling tools and provides a specific verb+resource.

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 explicitly advises using this tool to discover or disambiguate a destination before calling get_travel_advisory. This is strong contextual guidance, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools like list_travel_advisories.

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