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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the declaration is 'remembered for 90 days,' 'Re-declaring overwrites the prior value,' and it changes behavior from a permanent unknown-jurisdiction DENIED to an explicit reason. It also clarifies that this is a self-declaration, never advice, which is meaningful for a regulatory tool.

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 longer than average but each sentence carries operational or regulatory substance, and the core action is front-loaded in the first line. The 'Gap:' paragraph is slightly verbose but explains a genuine integration nuance worth preserving.

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 regulatory complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all needed context: when to call, persistence, cross-framework scope, limitations of a US-person declaration, and overwrite behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter-semantics burden and does so well for jurisdiction: 'ISO-3166-1 alpha-2 country code,' self-declaration, and its legal effect. However, wallet_address, ip, and caller_id receive no explicit semantic explanation, though the first is inferable from the tool name and the others are optional metadata.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair: 'Declare your wallet's jurisdiction for geo-gated trading.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly naming trade_equity's jurisdiction param and the perps/short/leverage tools, so an agent can tell what this tool is and what it is not.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this ONCE (or pass jurisdiction= directly on any perps/short/leverage/trade_equity tool)' and explains the 90-day persistence. It also sets boundaries, noting that a US-person declaration does not unblock US-restricted venues, which prevents misuse.

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