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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces a read-only mapping behavior ('normalization'). It adds context about the cross-country equivalence concept, but does not contradict 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?

Single sentence with illustrative examples. Front-loaded with the core purpose, no unnecessary words.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and simple data flow, the description adequately conveys the mapping logic and scope. Lacks return value details, which is acceptable without output schema.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds examples of canonical activities and jurisdictions, but does not significantly extend beyond the schema.

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 maps canonical activities to local license categories across jurisdictions, with specific examples (Nigeria MMO ≈ Ghana DEMI). It uses a specific verb 'normalize' and uniquely identifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cross_border_rules.

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 when to use (finding equivalent licenses across jurisdictions) and provides illustrative examples, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. It gives clear context without exclusions.

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