WHO Member Countries

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds context about the exact output (194 countries, codes, names) and a practical use case, which is valuable 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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose, content, and usage hint. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the main action.

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 presence of an output schema and the simple nature of the tool, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, how to use it with sibling tools, and the default scope.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what is already in the schema, though it does reinforce the purpose of the parameters implicitly.

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 lists WHO member countries and territories with codes and names, and provides a specific use case (using codes with who.data). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the resource and linking to related tools.

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 recommends using returned country codes with 'who.data' to filter health indicators. While it does not directly exclude alternative uses, the context provided is clear and offers practical guidance for integration.

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