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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that the list is short and unfiltered, and the schema documents the country_not_available error path, but there is nothing on latency, auth, or caching — modest added value over the structured fields.

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 purpose and usage sentences are front-loaded and efficient, but the exhaustive per-country body lists (CNRC, AAPI, DGI, CNAS/CASNOS, etc.) are long and largely restate what the tool returns, which an agent does not need in order to select or invoke it. The structure is sound, the bulk is borderline bloat.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing return values (website, one-line role, attribution page) and mentions the error case. Coverage of both parameters and the supported countries is adequate; only edge cases such as an unsupported dataset are left to the schema.

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%, so the schema already explains both lang and country, including the ISO codes, defaults and the country_not_available failure. The description's country-by-country breakdown restates the same enum semantics rather than adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 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 first sentence gives a precise verb and resource ('List the key public bodies a company deals with in a country') and even specifies the shape of each result (official website, one-line role, source page). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as list_countries or the calculate_*/get_* tools, which return numeric or registry data rather than bodies.

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?

'Use it to find which body handles a formality' gives a concrete selection context, and the per-country enumeration tells the agent which country values actually answer. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to a competing sibling for the same job, so it falls short of a 5.

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