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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It clarifies the tool does not grant citizenship, but does not disclose technical behavior, such as data sources or offline/online operations. Adds context about limitations, but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences deliver key info: purpose, scope, and limitations. Could be better structured (e.g., bullet list of countries) but is clear and efficient.

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?

Description mentions output is information and checklist, but lacks specifics on return format or structure. For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, more guidance on what the agent receives would improve completeness.

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 50%; descriptions for some parameters (e.g., 'ancestorNaturalizedYear') exist in schema but tool description adds no extra meaning. Parameters like 'ancestorEmigratedYear' lack schema description and tool description ignores them. Fails to compensate for gaps.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'detect eligibility' and resource 'second citizenship by ancestry', specifying four countries and informational role. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it is an information/checklist tool, not a recognition 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?

Explicitly says 'INFORMATION + DOCUMENT-CHECKLIST ONLY' and that recognition is decided by foreign government, indicating when to use (for info) and when not (for actual application). Does not mention sibling tools explicitly but sets clear boundaries.

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