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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, yet the description adds substantial non-structured context: deal fields read zero/empty when the workspace lacks the deals module and that result must not be interpreted as 'no deals', plus a data-licence obligation to preserve attribution_text when quoting onward. That is exactly the operational nuance the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then the no-iso3 case, then the iso3 case, then the caveats and attribution duty — a logical ordering with no filler. It is a dense single paragraph rather than scannable structure, and one sentence could be split, but every sentence contributes information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return shape, and it does: index fields (risk score plus team deal rollup), depth contents (component breakdown, indicator values, membership lists with citations, reference events, deals), plus the misleading-empty edge case. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100% and the schema already documents iso3 and its omit-to-list behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value with a concrete format example ('TUR'), the full ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 reference, and the downstream consequence of each mode, which is more than the schema states.

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 resource ('country intelligence for export finance') and exhaustively enumerates the two return modes keyed off the iso3 parameter, with concrete contents for each. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema, and it is clearly distinct from company_profile or entity_risk_profile 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?

Explicitly states the condition that selects each mode: omit iso3 to get the covered-country index, supply iso3 for a single country in depth. It also gives a clear do-not ('never report them as no deals'). It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools for adjacent needs such as risk scoring or company lookups, so no explicit alternative routing.

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