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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds real value on top: the scoring dimensions (actual tax burden, cost vs. current country, safety, climate, sea, flight time, language, healthcare, residency ease) and the shape of the response (top matches with reasons, watch-outs and links). Minor gaps remain on failure modes (e.g., unrecognized home_country) but the behavioral picture is solid.

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-loads purpose, then the ranking factors, then extra filters, then the return shape — a logical ordering with no filler sentences. It is dense and long-ish, but 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?

For a 14-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary work: it explains the recommendation logic, the optional narrowing filters, and what comes back (matches with reasons, watch-outs, links). Only edge behavior (invalid country, empty results, default limit behavior) is left unaddressed.

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 93%, so nearly every parameter is self-documenting; the description only restates the filter set (digital nomad visa, internet speed, time zone overlap) already spelled out in the schema. It adds light interpretive context by tying monthly income to "tax the user would actually pay" and current_country to cost/tax comparison, but that is baseline-level value.

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 resource ("Ranks the countries that best fit a person who wants to move abroad") and anchors it with concrete user questions. The ranking/recommendation framing clearly separates it from compare_countries (comparison), country_profile (single-country detail) and digital_nomad_visas (visa lookup).

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?

Example phrasings ("where should I live?", "best country for me as a remote worker") give strong intake context for when this tool applies. It never names an alternative or an exclusion case, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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