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.