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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral logic: checks income threshold with family, employment tenure, and application route, and returns a verdict with threshold and recommendations. This goes beyond a simple 'checks eligibility' and provides useful context about what the tool computes. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the main action and return information. Every sentence carries essential information: what the tool does, the criteria it checks, and what it returns. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essence: what it checks, based on official rules, and what it returns. It lacks exact output structure, but the high-level return (verdict, threshold, recommendations) is sufficient for selection. Given the moderate complexity, this is a good level of 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by linking income threshold to family and mentioning tenure and route, but it does not add specific details about each parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema is well-documented, the description's additional semantic value is marginal.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Проверяет проходимость кейса' (checks the case passability) for the Digital Nomad Visa in Spain. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on eligibility assessment rather than finding translators or getting general facts. Also explicitly states what it returns (verdict, threshold, recommendations).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to check eligibility under UGE rules. It mentions specific criteria (income threshold, tenure, submission route) which indicates the context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance.

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