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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read profile. The description adds useful behavioral context about the coverage data returned and explains that non-covered locations require a quote request via the order form, though it does not disclose whether the data is static or cached.

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 front-loaded and compact, with no filler. It is a single dense sentence with semicolons that could be easier to scan, but every clause carries substantive coverage 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?

With no input parameters, no output schema, and readOnlyHint=true, the description carries most of the burden for explaining what comes back. It adequately describes the coverage categories and the quote-request fallback, though it leaves the exact response structure implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 clearly defines the resource as service coverage and enumerates what it returns: language/certification availability, country authorities, notarisation and apostille/legalisation routes, formats, turnaround, and online pricing vs quote. It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_countries or list_services.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to check where services are available, and 'Anywhere else is a quote request through the order form' suggests the fallback path. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of list_countries, list_languages, list_services, or get_quote.

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