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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: unpriced steps (notary, bank) are flagged 'not priced instead of guessed', and unknown countries return country_not_available. This tells the agent how to interpret gaps rather than assume missing data.

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?

Front-loaded with Algeria and the key scope statement, but the single paragraph runs very long and spends a lot of words enumerating legal-form acronyms and step lists per country that a schema or output would convey more compactly. Informative but not tight.

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 and only two optional parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly per country (fees, capital, liability, steps, documents, delays). Minor gap: it doesn't describe the shape of the response or how 'not priced' appears in output.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by spelling out what each country value yields (TN: commercial companies code forms plus sole trader; MA: SARL AU, SAS, auto-entrepreneur, etc.), which clarifies the practical meaning of the country parameter beyond the ISO-code schema text.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (legal forms for company creation) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: partners allowed, minimum capital, State fees per step. It is clearly distinguishable from fee calculators and tariff siblings, and the scope (Algeria/Tunisia/Morocco) is stated up front.

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?

Gives clear context on when the tool applies (creating a company in DZ/TN/MA) and explicitly excludes adjacent use cases: 'It lists State fees only, never the fees of a service provider, so it is not a quote for a creation.' It also routes to list_countries for live datasets, though it doesn't contrast itself against sibling tools like get_tax_rates or calculate_ifu.

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