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

Since no annotations are provided, the description is entirely responsible for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic function without mentioning any side effects, data sources, rate limits, or response characteristics. This leaves the agent without insight into the tool's operational behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundant detail.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description provides the minimum viable understanding of the task. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter clarity, and since there are no annotations to supplement, the overall completeness is average.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions 'passport country' and 'destination,' which loosely maps to the 'passport' and 'destination' fields, but it does not clarify input formats (e.g., country codes vs. names) or any constraints, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 states the tool's function: checking visa requirements for a passport country visiting a destination. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unmistakable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool visa_summary.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like visa_summary. The description only states what the tool does, with no context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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