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

Annotations already declare this as a readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return content — agencies with their official URLs — which matters given there is no output schema. It stops short of noting coverage gaps or fallback behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose followed by input format and return shape. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies both the input encoding (with examples) and the shape of the result. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0% (the 'country' property has no description, only length constraints), so the description must carry the burden. It does: it names the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format and supplies ten concrete examples, resolving the main ambiguity for a 2-character string parameter.

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+resource — finding official reporting places for a crypto/investment scam — with the scoping dimension (country) made explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_name, check_website, and latest_warnings, which are lookups rather than reporting-routing tools.

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 description implies the trigger context (you need somewhere to report a scam) and gives the required country format, but never states when to prefer this over the check_* siblings or what happens when a country has no listed agencies. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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