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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds a genuinely useful disclosure beyond them — 'not live coverage' — warning the agent that results are static research rather than current operational data, which changes how results should be framed to a user.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence split by a semicolon: operation modes first, caveat last. Nothing is redundant, though the telegraphic 'List country research' phrasing costs some readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is the input side: for a two-parameter read tool with zero schema coverage, the description should define what 'capability' accepts and what the list mode actually enumerates.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It contributes real value for 'country' by pinning the format to ISO-2, but 'capability' is only alluded to via 'capability/access evidence' with no accepted values, format, or interaction rules with 'country' — half the parameters remain under-specified.

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 names two operations (list country research, inspect one country's capability/access evidence) with a specific identifier format (ISO-2), so the verb+resource relationship is discernible. However, 'country research' and 'capability/access evidence' are fuzzy resource names — an agent cannot tell exactly what domain payload is returned — and there is no differentiation from the unrelated verification siblings.

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 two modes are implied by the optional parameters: omit country to list, supply an ISO-2 code to inspect. That is useful routing guidance, but it is never stated explicitly, no condition favors one mode over the other, and no alternative or prerequisite is named.

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