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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a URL and PDF, that all figures are publicly sourced, and that no personal data is included. This adequately covers the read-only, safe nature of the tool. However, it does not mention potential access restrictions or rate limits.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that efficiently conveys key points, front-loading the report's focus areas. It is informative without verbosity, though a slight structural break could improve scannability.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (URL and PDF) and the nature of its content. It is complete for the tool's simple purpose.

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 has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information since there are none.

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 clearly states that the tool provides headline findings from a specific public-data report, with details on what it covers (immigrant population, credit-invisibility gap, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying this is a report summary with sourced data, not a Q&A or how-to tool.

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?

The description implies the tool is used to retrieve the canonical report, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools like ask_wiremi or how_a_rosca_works. No guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is provided.

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