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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists jurisdictions, which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not describe the output format or any special behaviors, but for a simple list operation this is adequate. The description is honest and does not contradict any hidden behavior; it simply provides the core function.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It leads with the verb and resource, includes the specific count, and mentions the features. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool returns (a list of 7 jurisdictions with privacy/legal features). It does not detail the exact structure of the returned data, but for a list operation without an output schema, this is not a critical gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it and to understand its result.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists, and nothing more is needed. This is appropriate.

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 ('List'), a precise resource ('offshore jurisdictions ServGhost operates in'), and a specific count (7). It also mentions the included content ('privacy/legal features'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_plans, which presumably lists plans, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever the agent needs the list of offshore jurisdictions with their features. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough given the sibling set. For a parameterless list tool, this level of guidance is sufficient; it would have been slightly better to explicitly state 'use list_plans for plans', but that is not necessary.

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