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 establish readOnly and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds that results are summary rows sorted cheapest-first, which is real behavioral context. It stops short of stating result limits, pagination, or how many countries are covered, so it is not fully transparent.

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, zero filler, with the core scope and ordering front-loaded and the routing to get_country_profile placed at the end where a caller will look. 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return and does so at a summary level ("Returns summary rows"), and it clarifies the central filter's units. It is nearly complete but omits the semantics of the countries parameter and any result-size expectations.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining what max_minimum_usd means per visa type (monthly USD income for digital_nomad/retirement, USD investment for investor), which the schema text does not convey. The countries array and region options are left entirely to the schema, so it is not complete.

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?

"Search digital nomad, retirement (pensionado) and investor visas across countries" is a specific verb plus resource, and it states the ordering ("cheapest entry first") that no sibling claims. It also distinguishes itself from get_country_profile by scope, so an agent can separate it from siblings 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?

It names the alternative explicitly ("use get_country_profile for full requirements") and gives the condition that selects it — needing full requirements rather than summary rows. The visa_type values are also tied to which filter metric applies, so the agent knows when each filter is meaningful.

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 cover readOnly/openWorld safety, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: the summary fields, verification dates, legal citations, and the warning that full profiles can be large (a performance cue). It does not discuss auth needs or rate limits, but the content and size hints go well beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with "Everything on one country" and then a labeled summary followed by a structured "Then:" list. It is dense and long, but since there is no output schema the enumeration of available fields largely earns its place rather than being padding.

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 output schema and only 50% schema coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back and does so thoroughly, listing every section and the summary contents. An agent knows both what to send and roughly what to expect, leaving only minor gaps like response size specifics.

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 has a description while the topics enum does not. The description nonetheless maps content areas to topics ("visas", "years from residency to citizenship", "tax blacklist status"), adding meaning about what narrowing by topics yields. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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+resource (get one country's profile) and enumerates the exact content returned, from visa minimums to passport power. It clearly distinguishes itself from compare_countries by being single-country scoped, though it never names a sibling 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?

The line "Pass topics to narrow it; full profiles can be large" gives practical guidance on the topics parameter and hints at when to narrow. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus compare_countries or find_visas, so the usage context is only implied.

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, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-structured context by disclosing that a commercial API key is required and linking to the plan page. It does not say what happens on a missing/invalid key or how large the response can be, which is a notable omission for a 'full dataset' tool.

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 zero filler; the data scope is stated first and the access prerequisite second. Nothing is repeated or 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, yet it never says what a 'row' looks like, whether results are paginated, or how large the payload can get. For a full-dataset commercial endpoint, those details matter to an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 well documented in the schema, while the topic enum has no per-value descriptions. The description adds that topic takes exactly one value and that country is optional, but contributes nothing about the 15 allowed topic values or accepted country formats beyond what the schema already says.

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?

"Every row of one topic, optionally for one country" states the retrieval scope precisely: a full, unfiltered row dump scoped by topic and optional country. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_country_profile or compare_countries, so an agent must infer the difference, but the resource and granularity are clear.

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: 'every row' suggests a bulk/full extract versus a summary tool, and 'optionally for one country' hints at scoping. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_country_profile or compare_countries, and no warning about when not to use it (e.g., for a narrow lookup).

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and with no output schema the description usefully discloses the shape of the returned data: ISO code, region, a one-line headline, and the topics covered per country. It notably adds that trade blocs are included, information available nowhere else.

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 a colon-delimited field list; no filler, no repetition of the name, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials, including the fields returned and the trade-bloc inclusion. It stops short of explaining what the 'topics' values mean or how the result should feed into sibling tools, but nothing required to invoke it 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so per the baseline this dimension is a 4. The description correctly makes no attempt to document inputs and instead spends its words on output meaning.

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 resource (countries and trade blocs) and what the listing contains (ISO code, region, headline, topics), so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the related get_country_profile or compare_countries siblings, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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: this reads as a discovery/enumeration call that would naturally precede get_country_profile, but the description never says when to use it or when not to. No alternative is named and no condition is given.

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