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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that by disclosing what the listing contains (per-country year coverage and source), which helps the agent interpret the result, though it says nothing about ordering, size, or pagination.

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 waste: the first states what is listed and for whom, the second states when to call it. Purpose and trigger are both front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden and largely meets it by naming the returned fields (jurisdictions, indicators, year coverage, source). A brief note on the shape of the response would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly does not invent parameter semantics for a no-arg listing call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the jurisdictions and macro indicators') and scopes it to the two downstream consumers, resolve_country_claim and get_country_indicator. It also names the payload contents (per-country year coverage and source), so an agent can distinguish it from sibling lookup tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger: 'Call this to check coverage before resolving a claim or looking up an indicator,' naming both alternative tools it precedes. The when-to-use condition is unambiguous, leaving nothing to inference.

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