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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses detailed behavioral traits: each entry carries source and as-of date, per-category coverage block with ingestion statuses, explanations for empty slices, default summary format that fits widest slice, and full format with pagination. This is comprehensive and adds significant value beyond 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and provides a structured list of activities and jurisdictions. While verbose, each sentence adds unique information. Could be slightly more concise, but the detail is valuable.

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?

The description explains output characteristics (source, as-of, coverage blocks, pagination) despite the absence of an output schema. It covers default and full formats and how missing data is reported. Some specifics about row structure are omitted, but it is sufficiently complete for an LLM to understand the tool's behavior.

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% with parameter descriptions, and the tool description adds context such as listing example activity values, all jurisdiction codes, union scopes (WAEMU, CEMAC), and default behaviors for limit and format. This enriches the schema information meaningfully.

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 the tool lists licensed/authorized entities for specific fintech activities in African jurisdictions from official regulator registers. It provides a comprehensive list of activities and 42 countries, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cross_border_rules, map_license, and requirements which serve different purposes.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when needing licensed provider data for specified activities and jurisdictions), but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It lacks guidance on selecting between alternatives.

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