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

The annotations already declare a safe read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: specs are checked against official sources and can_make_here false has a specific operational meaning.

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 compact and front-loads the resource, then adds filtering and can_make_here semantics. It is slightly awkwardly phrased but contains little wasted text.

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 one-parameter list tool with a fully described enum and no output schema, the description covers the resource, the filter, the id handoff to get_photo_spec, and can_make_here semantics. It does not state what happens when country is omitted, but the definition is otherwise sufficient.

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%, including a fully documented country enum. The description only repeats that results can be filtered by country code and adds no syntax or default behavior 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 identifies the resource as ID photo specs checked against official sources and explains that each spec has an id for get_photo_spec. This distinguishes it from the sibling detail tool and tells an agent exactly what the tool provides.

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 explicitly says to filter by country code and implies the list-to-detail workflow by mentioning the id for get_photo_spec. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the sibling relationship is clear enough for selection.

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