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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the data source and the scope of results, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination defaults, filtering semantics, or potential response volume.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource and its key output dimensions without filler. It is slightly dense and could be split for readability, but every clause adds relevant 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, the description provides enough context about the data source, the resource type, and the included fields. Minor ambiguity around 'directory groups' could be clearer, but overall the tool is adequately described for invocation.

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%, so the input schema already documents limit, offset, in_directory, and jurisdiction. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which places it at the baseline of 3.

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 specific resource ('IAIGs in the IAIS public register'), and the key data returned: group-wide supervisor, jurisdiction, and controlled directory groups, entities, and countries. This clearly distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like list_groups or list_insurers.

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 this tool is for retrieving IAIGs specifically from the IAIS public register, but it never explicitly says when to choose it over siblings such as list_groups or list_insurers. There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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