MyLatinLife Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results come 'with legal basis and consequences,' but says nothing about coverage limits, freshness of list data, or what happens for a jurisdiction on no list. A 3 is appropriate given annotations carry the safety burden.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the list sources are packed into a parenthetical rather than padding the prose. It is slightly fragmentary (no verb), which is why it isn't a 5.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the query's scope and even hints at return content (legal basis, consequences). Missing only minor items like result coverage or handling of jurisdictions not on any list.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents that 'jurisdiction' accepts a name or ISO alpha-2 code. The description adds no format, alias, or edge-case guidance (e.g. behavior for unrecognized codes) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 per the schema-coverage rule.

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 names a specific resource — tax and AML blacklists/greylists — and enumerates the concrete sources (EU Annex I/II, OECD, FATF, national lists), which no sibling tool covers. The verb is implied by the interrogative phrasing ('which ... a jurisdiction is on') rather than stated, so it falls just short of the sharpest possible framing, but an agent can immediately tell this apart from compare_countries or get_country_profile.

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?

Usage is implied: use it when you need to know a jurisdiction's blacklist status. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to siblings such as get_country_profile for general country data. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape ('side-by-side rows'), which is modest but real value; it says nothing about row limits, ordering, or what happens when a country lacks data for a topic.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an inline example; no filler, no restatement of the title. Every clause carries information.

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, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and 'side-by-side rows' is only a partial picture — no mention of what fields appear per row, ordering, or handling of missing data. For a low-complexity two-parameter tool this is adequate but thin.

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 compensate, and the example does illustrate both arguments concretely (a topic value plus three country values). However, it never clarifies the expected country format (name vs. ISO code) and relies on the schema's enum for valid topic values.

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 clear verb+resource: produce side-by-side rows comparing several countries on a single topic, with a concrete example. It is distinguishable from single-country siblings like get_country_profile by implication ('several countries'), but never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied through the example ('tax_systems for Panama, Paraguay and Uruguay') and the word 'several'. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_country_profile or list_countries, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: cheapest-first ordering and that it returns summary rows. It doesn't mention limits, empty-result behavior, or how 'cheapest' is computed, but with annotations covering safety it is adequate.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what it searches, then filtering/ordering, then return-shape routing. Nothing is wasted.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, filtering semantics, and redirects to the sibling for detail. Minor gaps remain around result limits and how filters combine, but overall complete enough to call 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 50%; region and max_minimum_usd are documented in schema. The description explains max_minimum_usd semantics per visa_type (monthly income for digital_nomad/retirement, investment for investor), which is valuable beyond the schema. But it doesn't address region/countries/visa_type semantics at any added depth.

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 (Search) and resource (digital nomad, retirement, investor visas), specifies ordering (cheapest entry first), and names the sibling (get_country_profile) for deeper detail. An agent can distinguish it from list_countries and get_country_profile without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says to use get_country_profile for full requirements, clarifying scope. However it doesn't state when NOT to use it versus compare_countries or list_countries, so the alternative routing is only partially covered.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context that full profiles can be large and that topics can narrow results, though it doesn't discuss rate limits or detailed return format.

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?

It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists key data areas efficiently. The sentence 'Pass topics to narrow it; full profiles can be large.' is useful but could be integrated more smoothly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers most major data categories and mentions size/narrowing. It could be more complete by explicitly stating default behavior when topics are omitted.

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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters (country is described; topics is not). The description mentions 'Pass topics to narrow it' and lists many topics, implicitly mapping to the topics parameter, but does not explain the enum values or default behavior.

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 explicitly states the tool returns comprehensive country profile data across specific domains (visas, residency, taxes, etc.), and this scope is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_visas or check_tax_blacklists.

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 implicitly guides usage by saying 'Pass topics to narrow it' and notes that full profiles can be large, suggesting a when-to-use-case. However, it lacks explicit comparison to alternatives such as compare_countries or find_visas.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's disclosure that a commercial API key is required (with a purchase link) adds genuinely useful behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields. It still omits what happens without a key (hard failure vs. truncated result) and does not characterize the volume/size of the return payload.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the scope ('every row of one topic') is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter data-dump tool with no output schema, the description is workable but thin: it never hints at the shape or granularity of a returned row, nor whether the same topic/country call is deterministic or paginated.

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 50%: country is documented with examples in the schema, while topic is only conveyed via its enum. The description adds that country is optional, but this is already implied by the schema's required list, so it contributes little beyond the structured data.

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 and scope: every row of one topic, optionally narrowed to one country. This clearly separates it from narrower siblings like get_country_profile or find_visas without needing to name them, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 phrase 'optionally for one country' implies when to use it (bulk/complete extraction for a topic), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion conditions, and no pointer to a lighter alternative such as get_country_profile for single-country lookups.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that the result is a coverage map — countries plus the topics each one has — rather than raw records. It still says nothing about response shape or ordering, but for a no-param read tool that is a minor gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the resource is front-loaded. It loses a point for being a sentence fragment with no verb, which reads more like a label than an instruction.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return, and it does indicate that countries/trade blocs come back with their available topics. It stops short of describing the grouping or shape of that result, leaving the agent to discover it on first call.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for an empty schema is 4. No syntax, defaults, or validation details are needed.

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 fragment names the resource (countries and trade blocs) and the return content (which topics each has), so the agent can infer it enumerates coverage. But it lacks a verb and never says 'list', and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like compare_countries or get_country_profile that also center on countries.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the five sibling tools. The agent must guess that this is the discovery/index tool to call before get_country_profile or compare_countries.

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