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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable return-shape context (countries, sub-regions, primary standards), which annotations cannot express; it stops short of noting rate limits, though the api_key schema covers the free-tier cap.

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-loaded with the core action, then usage guidance, then return shape. No filler; every sentence contributes.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the returned structure (countries, sub-regions, applicable standards). Combined with complete schema parameter docs and full annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the trade enum is fully documented in the schema, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that the list is scoped 'for a specific trade' without adding format or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Lists') and precise resource ('all jurisdictions and regions supported by Legis-Link'), scoped by trade. It is clearly a discovery/lookup tool, distinguishable from its siblings (check_compliance, calculate_technical_spec, etc.) which are action-oriented.

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 gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use this tool before calling other tools to confirm that the target region is supported,' and names the fallback condition 'when the user has not specified one.' An agent knows both when to call it and why.

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