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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds crucial behavioral context: counts are per entity, not per licence; each company appears once; byClass sums to total; and regulator's licence tally is broader. It also notes it accepts a slug or ISO code. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them, providing valuable interpretative guidance.

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 about five sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential counting semantics, a warning, the parameter format, and an alternative tool. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded, with no redundancy or fluff. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 has a single parameter, an output schema (indicated), and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, how counts work, when to use an alternative, and what input format is expected. An agent has everything needed to correctly invoke the tool and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%: the parameter 'country' is described in the schema as accepting a slug or ISO alpha-2 code with examples. The description repeats this but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema carries the full burden, a baseline score of 3 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 exactly what the tool returns: compact market facts for one country (regulator, currency, counts, verification, notes) and explicitly excludes insurer rows. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_insurers and get_country. The verb 'get' and specific resource 'country summary' make 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 explicitly says 'Use list_insurers with country for paged entity records,' directly telling the agent when to use an alternative. It also explains the counting semantics (entities vs licences) and warns that a regulator's own tally will not match, preventing misuse and misinterpretation. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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