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

The annotations already establish a safe read-only, closed-world, non-destructive call, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds useful behavioral context: the list is not exhaustive and reflects what authorities and networks have described. That framing tells the agent to hedge claims about completeness, which is genuinely non-obvious and valuable for a factual-claims tool.

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, front-loaded with the triggering question types before the exclusions, with every clause earning its place. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 one optional enum-typed parameter, an output schema provided, and full annotations, the description fills precisely the remaining gaps: when to invoke, the geographic limit, and the completeness caveat. An agent needs nothing further to call this correctly.

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 100% and the enum already documents all 13 pattern values, including the note to leave the parameter out for the full list. The description's phrasing about how "a named one works" reinforces the mode but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource (mobile-money and online fraud patterns in Ghana) plus a secondary mode (explaining one named pattern), and gives concrete examples like the "wrong transfer" call, SIM swap, and prize payment. It does not explicitly say how it differs from siblings such as scams.check_message or scams.where_to_report, so an agent must infer that boundary, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 a clear trigger ("Use this when someone asks which ... frauds are common in Ghana, or how a named one works") and an explicit exclusion ("Do not use it for fraud outside Ghana"). It stops short of routing to an alternative tool for adjacent requests, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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