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 nevertheless adds real behavioral content: it says each entry carries a summary, official sources and a verification date, and it explains the 'planned' status as having no rules implemented yet — a semantic that is not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The clause 'and are listed so their status is clear' is mildly redundant with the preceding statement that they are listed, but the rest of the sentence carries unique information about unimplemented rules.

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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description does the remaining work: it names the fields the agent will see and pre-explains the one surprising state ('planned' with no rules). The only gap is the absence of a pointer to the natural next call, which would make the discovery flow self-contained.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste text on inputs and instead spends it on what the call returns.

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 ('List the citizenship-by-descent pathways') plus a scope qualifier ('this server can evaluate'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_pathway_requirements or check_descent_eligibility, so an agent must infer that this is the enumeration/discovery tool, but the inference is easy.

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: the 'list' framing plus the note about 'planned' countries suggests this is the entry point before calling requirements or eligibility tools, but no sentence says when to use this instead of a sibling or what to do next. No exclusions, no prerequisites, no alternative routing.

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