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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent, describing a read-only factual lookup. It adds little behavioral detail beyond the annotations, but does not contradict them.

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, compact noun phrase with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the key subject 'regulatory facts' and costs the agent zero extra reading time.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description gives sufficient scope by naming the product and the involved entity types. It does not mention the locale's role in language, but that is already covered in the schema.

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 describes the only parameter (locale) with an enum and description, so description-level compensation is unnecessary. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is fine given 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource: regulatory facts about a specific war-risk + radiation-risk travel insurance product and its licensed entities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a narrow regulatory scope, though the verb 'get' is only in the tool name, not the description.

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 a lookup use case for regulatory facts, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives like search or fetch. This is adequate but minimal guidance.

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