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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing ordering ('newest first'), the shape of each entry (old value, new value, official source), and that entries are pre-verified. It does not mention pagination or what an empty result means.

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 what the tool actually returns, then ordering, then entry shape, then a compact Args block. Every sentence adds information; nothing is padded or restated from the schema.

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 an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and it still sketches the entry shape. All three optional parameters are documented with defaults and bounds, and ordering is stated, leaving no ambiguity about how to call it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden and it does: country accepts an ISO alpha-2 code or English name, since is an inclusive lower bound date, and limit is bounded 1-100 with a default of 20. These constraints (acceptance formats, inclusivity, max bound) go beyond what the bare schema titles convey.

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 and resource ('recent changes to visa and residence rules') plus a scope qualifier ('verified by GoThere'), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like get_visa_options or get_pathway_requirements. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of the 5 benchmark.

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 only implied: filters are optional and the tool returns a chronological list, so an agent can infer this is for checking what changed rather than for looking up current requirements. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when...' guidance and no exclusion criteria against the sibling tools.

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