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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the default date, response effective_date semantics, HTTP 422 for invalid queries, and HTTP 404 for no matches. This is unusually complete for a search tool without 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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and organized into useful search, date, and error-behavior details. Every sentence adds information without repetition.

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?

For a two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers usage, date semantics, validation, and no-match behavior. It does not describe the shape of returned rate data, but it is otherwise complete enough to invoke 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 100%, so the schema already documents q and date formats. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that date selects effective and seasonal rates and defaults to today.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching DSSR per diem by country/location name. The 'DSSR' qualifier helps distinguish it from sibling per diem search tools such as search_dtmo_perdiem, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It gives clear usage context: global search by case-insensitive substring, with date selecting effective and seasonal rates. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus sibling tools like postcode-based or GSA/DTMO per diem lookups.

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