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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the tool actually contains (ordered steps plus four named reporting channels) and by warning that recovery is unlikely once funds are withdrawn, which shapes how the agent should phrase its answer.

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, with the trigger condition front-loaded before the content summary, the exclusion, and the tone caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information, and nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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 the return shape needn't be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains for a domain-advice tool, namely geographic scope, the list of authorities covered, the ordering of steps, and the expectation-setting about recovery, is all present.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the enum values are self-explanatory; that sets the baseline at 3. The phrase "what to do after sending money to a fraudster" hints that the money_already_sent flag changes the guidance returned, but the description never names the parameter or explains how the network filter affects channel selection.

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 gives a concrete trigger ("someone in Ghana asks where to report mobile-money or online fraud") and a concrete deliverable ("reporting channels of the Cyber Security Authority, the networks, the police and the Bank of Ghana, and the steps to take in order"). That is a specific verb-plus-resource statement, clearly not a message-analysis tool. It stops short of naming the sibling tools, so the split from scams.check_message is inferable from subject matter rather than stated.

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 states the triggering question type explicitly, including the after-the-fact case ("what to do after sending money to a fraudster"). It also gives an explicit exclusion ("Do not use it for other countries") and a response constraint (do not imply money will be recovered), which is when-not guidance rather than mere context.

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