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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by explaining that the tool reports what venues and regulators publish, enumerates possible status values (yes, restricted, unclear, no), and includes the disclaimer 'Not legal advice.' No contradiction with annotations was found.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by a useful disclaimer. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema exists.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the returned information: status category, basis, and sources. The phrasing 'sources a person opened' is unclear and could confuse an agent, and unsupported-country behavior is not mentioned, but the overall context is sufficient.

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 schema fully documents the single 'country' parameter with allowed codes and examples, so the description need not repeat that. The phrase 'For one jurisdiction' reinforces the parameter's purpose, but the description adds no additional semantic value beyond 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 states a clear purpose: for one jurisdiction, report what venues and regulators publish about perp access, with answer categories and supporting sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools about fees, funding, volume, and cheapest venue. Minor ambiguity in the phrase 'the sources a person opened' and the unexplained abbreviation 'perp' keep it from a 5.

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 phrase 'For one jurisdiction' implies the tool is used when you need access information for a single country, and the country parameter is obvious. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over the listed siblings or when not to use it.

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