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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it returns both qualifying programs and 'near misses just out of reach', and it flags the data as curated summaries requiring verification. Return-field detail (duration, tax notes, URLs) overlaps with the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, then supporting detail, then a short verification caveat. It is dense but each clause adds information; the enumeration of returned fields is the only mildly padding element given the output schema.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey mechanism and trust caveats, which it does. Minor gaps remain: no mention that all parameters are optional/defaulted behavior, though the schema covers this.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds light semantic linkage (children add the child uplift, partners raise the threshold by the partner uplift, income may be in any currency), but does not clarify the duration/renewable/residency filters beyond the schema's own text.

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 (match/compute) and resource (digital-nomad visa income thresholds) and explains the mechanism: base threshold plus published per-dependent uplift, returning qualifiers and near misses. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_retirement_visas, find_student_visas and find_founder_visas.

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 trigger condition is explicit ('given a monthly remote income and household size'), and the closing caveat tells the agent to verify against official sources before applying. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over the sibling visa finders or note any input preconditions.

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