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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral detail: tax figures are conditional on income being supplied, and the current_country is explicitly left out of results. It also notes the return includes links to the full page. Minor gap: it labels home_country 'Required' while the schema does not require it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with the content enumeration compressed into a single list rather than separate sentences. The long comma-separated list is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what comes back.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description adequately explains what data is returned and the conditional nature of the tax fields. It leaves only minor gaps, such as behavior for unknown or ambiguous country inputs.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces purpose (income drives tax estimates, home_country drives distance/language) but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and its 'Required' note on home_country conflicts slightly with the schema.

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 resource (a single country's relocation profile) and enumerates the concrete data it returns, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. Sibling differentiation is only implicit — it never names compare_countries or recommend_countries to signal that this is the single-destination option.

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 rather than stated: the phrase "living in one country" hints at a single-destination lookup versus the multi-country siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing guidance toward compare_countries, digital_nomad_visas, or recommend_countries.

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