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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the operation is 'deterministic and offline' and returns a cited verdict rather than a raw number. It does not say what happens for an unsupported jurisdiction or ambiguous subject, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the WHENEVER trigger before the mechanism and the return shape. Parenthetical examples earn their space; the only slight drag is the redundant restatement of the jurisdiction example in both the sentence and the schema.

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?

For a 5-param, no-output-schema tool with solid annotations, the description covers the trigger, the jurisdiction-binding mechanism, and the return shape ('cited above/below verdict'). Missing only edge-case behavior (unsupported jurisdiction, how resolve_by interacts with a claim) for a full 5.

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 60%, and the description adds meaning for two of five params — jurisdiction (CZ, DE examples) and subject (inflation, GDP, interest rates) — while direction, threshold, and especially resolve_by get no explanation anywhere. Moderate coverage plus partial compensation lands at the baseline 3.

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 a specific verb and resource — it 'binds the claim to a jurisdiction' and 'returns a cited above/below verdict' — which is far more concrete than the title alone. It distinguishes itself from a generic memory answer (wrong jurisdiction risk), but it never names the nearest sibling tools (e.g. get_country_indicator) it must be told apart from, so routing still requires inference.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('WHENEVER the user states or asks you to verify a numeric macro claim'), scopes it to specific subject matter (inflation, GDP, interest rates), and names the anti-pattern it replaces — answering from memory with a possibly wrong jurisdiction. That is about as close to explicit when/when-not guidance as a description gets.

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