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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and open-world. The description restates that it returns data but does not add extra behavioral context like caching, rate limits, or data freshness. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a usage line and an input line. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose—describing output, usage context, and input parameters. No wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists (per context signals) and the tool is a straightforward read-only lookup, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand its role. It could mention what happens when no regulations are found, but the output schema likely handles that.

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 description explicitly says 'Input: a country, with an optional category,' which adds value by making the optionality clear beyond the schema's property descriptions. However, it does not cover optional 'async' or 'limit' parameters, though these are common patterns and documented in the schema.

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 states it returns import, trade, and production regulations for a country, listing specific fields (category, title, summary, source). This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that deal with other aspects of trade, compliance, or country data.

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 includes a 'When to use' statement that gives context (regulatory/compliance checks before trading/producing), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for related but distinct tasks (e.g., sanctions screening, trade finance eligibility).

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