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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only and PII-free behavior, generic analysis, and the exact return components (verdict, requirements by severity, source links, deep link). This is rich behavioral transparency.

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 sentences front-load the purpose, then input format, then outputs and safety. No fluff; every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers return values in detail, input formats, and safety traits. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, with no obvious gaps.

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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new semantic meaning beyond reiterating accepted formats. The examples in the description duplicate schema examples. Baseline 3 applies.

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 checks visa needs and entry/transit requirements for a passport-destination pair, with official sources. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from the sibling country_code tool, which handles code conversion.

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: whenever a traveler needs visa/entry requirements. It explicitly accepts both ISO codes and country names, signaling no need for prior code conversion via the sibling tool, but it does not name alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context but not explicit alternatives.

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