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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it only provides information and must not be used to submit an application on someone's behalf, and it clarifies the VOA exclusion. This is meaningful added context, even though no system-side side effects are described.

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 compact: two sentences front-load the returned data and close with a critical safety/eligibility rule. Every phrase carries useful information, though the first sentence is a dense comma-separated list that could be structured slightly more cleanly.

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 output schema, the description does the necessary work by enumerating the principal return fields and eligibility caveats. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly with zero parameters. The reference to 'both tracks' is not fully defined, which keeps this from being a perfect score.

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 input schema defines zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description correctly does not invent parameters. For a zero-parameter tool, the baseline of 4 applies.

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 makes it clear this is an informational lookup for Morocco e-visa costs and requirements for Israeli passport holders, enumerating the exact return fields: price in ILS, government fee, processing time, passport validity, and URLs. It is distinct from the sibling travel-content tools by its explicit visa scope, and the 'never apply on someone's behalf' line reinforces that this is not an application/booking action.

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 gives clear context: use this for Moroccan e-visa information for Israeli passport holders, and it explicitly warns that visa-on-arrival is not available to Israelis. It also states a hard boundary ('Never apply on someone's behalf'), though it does not name alternative sibling tools or provide a more explicit 'use this when...' formulation.

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