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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are grouped by condition number, English is the official source text while Chinese is translated, and the response preserves sources, conditions and pagination. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Four compact sentences, with the core search purpose and modes front-loaded before the sibling reference and caveats. Dense but no filler; each sentence carries information about behavior or scope.

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 must cover returns, and it does: grouping by condition number, language provenance (English official, Chinese translated), preserved sources, and pagination. The only real gap is parameter-level detail for page/pageSize, which is minor for a simple search tool.

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 only 25% (only locale is documented), so the description carries more burden. It usefully clarifies keyword semantics ('by number or keyword, or omit keyword to browse') and gestures at pagination, but page and pageSize are never explained in either schema or description, leaving two parameters under-documented.

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 verb+resource ('Search public Home Affairs visa condition descriptions') and immediately clarifies the search modes ('by number or keyword, or omit keyword to browse'). It names the sibling get_visa_condition and explains how the two differ (grouped-by-number here vs. all source records there), so an agent can choose 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 gives clear when-to-use context ('by number or keyword, or omit keyword to browse') and an explicit when-not ('Does not determine conditions attached to a personal visa'), plus names the alternative get_visa_condition. It stops short of fully spelling out the routing rule between this tool and get_visa_condition, but the distinction is stated.

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