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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: partial answers are returned as `{partial}` rather than rounded, 'true says the provision exists in law, not that it is enforced', and statutory figures are for information only with a disclaimer fronted in every response. These are meaningful behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 definition is front-loaded with what the tool is before moving to modes and caveats, and every clause carries substantive information about outputs, edge cases or disclaimers. The single long paragraph is dense and could be better structured with line breaks, but it contains little waste.

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 five-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers all three invocation modes, partial-answer semantics, the enforcement caveat, the advice disclaimer, and the dataset edition. Nothing an agent needs to select or call the tool 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by mapping each parameter mode to its output: `country` yields the index, eight topic scores, coded answers and retirement ages; `countries` yields side-by-side comparison; neither yields the spine ranked by `metric`. It also clarifies when `sort` and `limit` are ignored, adding value beyond the enum descriptions.

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 states a specific dataset and resource: 'The World Bank's Women, Business and the Law reading of each country's statute (2026 edition, 41 spine countries).' It names the precise outputs (Legal Frameworks index, eight topic scores, coded answers, retirement ages), which distinguishes it clearly from the many sibling comparison tools that cover different domains.

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 lays out three invocation modes: 'Give `country` for one country', 'Give `countries` (two or more) for the index, topics and ages side by side', and 'neither for the spine ranked by `metric`.' This is clear when-to-use guidance for each mode, though it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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