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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds a genuine dataset caveat — no Indian professionals are currently listed and lawyers are never listed — which is useful behavioural context beyond the annotations. It does not say whether a regulator link, name, or contact detail is produced, so disclosure remains partial.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the country qualifier and then a compact value-to-regulator list — no padding. The trailing 'Payotte' sentence introduces an unglossed brand name that slightly muddies the close.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description should make clear what comes back (regulator name, verification URL, procedure). It only gestures at 'where the reader checks a registration', leaving the response shape ambiguous, though parameter meaning and scope exclusions are covered.

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% and the sole enum-less 'trade' parameter is already documented with the same five values. The description pairs each value with its regulator (agent→state RERA, valuer→IBBI, etc.), which adds meaning about what a given value yields, but it does not help with spelling, casing, or accepted synonyms for the parameter. Baseline 3 is warranted.

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 names a specific domain and resource: an India-only mapping from property profession (agent, valuer, architect, lender, lawyer) to the body that regulates it (state RERA, IBBI, Council of Architecture, RBI, State Bar Council). The 'INDIA.' prefix cleanly separates it from check_professional_au and check_professional_uk. The phrasing 'where the reader checks a registration' is slightly oblique about what is actually returned, keeping it from a 5.

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 usage (pick a trade to learn its regulator) and hedges scope with 'Payotte lists no Indian professional yet and never lists lawyers', which is a soft exclusion about expected results. It never states when to call this instead of siblings such as guide_in, verify_license_us, or trouver_professionnel_fr, so routing is left to inference.

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