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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context the annotations cannot: the underlying data source (Digital in Asia's tracker) and that results come as comparison tables with source links, which tells the agent what it will get back.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded, the topic filter next, and the return format last. No filler or 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 simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers what it does, the optional filter, and the shape of the output. With no output schema present, it could say slightly more about table contents, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already enumerates the topic values and the 2-6 market bounds, so the description adds little beyond restating the topic list. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 (compare markets side by side), the data source (Digital in Asia's tracker data), and the domain restriction (Asian markets). The comparative framing clearly separates it from single-entity siblings like get_country_profile and get_tracker.

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 phrase 'two or more' and the enumerated topics imply the use case, and 'side by side' signals it is for multi-market comparison rather than a single lookup. However, the description never explicitly names an alternative such as get_country_profile for single-market questions, leaving the routing to inference.

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