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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful payload context (checklist steps with sources, fees, recent rule changes), but says nothing about what happens with an unknown or malformed visa_id.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, parameter example next, secondary return content last. No filler or 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?

A single-parameter read tool with an output schema, so return values need no explanation; the description covers purpose, ID format, and the extra payload. The only real gap is not telling the agent how to obtain a valid visa_id.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does supply concrete ID examples ('es_dnv', 'pt_d7'), which is exactly the missing information. It stops short of saying where valid visa_ids come from (presumably get_visa_options) or that exactly one ID is accepted.

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 verb+resource with scope: a step-by-step application checklist for exactly one visa, including sources. The resource (checklist) is clearly distinct from sibling concerns (eligibility, pathways, rule changes, visa options), though the description does not explicitly name a sibling to route away from.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for one visa' and the example IDs, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, nor any mention of how it relates to get_rule_changes despite the description saying it also returns recent rule changes — a genuine ambiguity an agent must resolve on its own.

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