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 detail: TN and MA require an API key, unsupported countries error out, roles lacking a Journal officiel text are marked TO VERIFY, and each Algerian role cites its establishing act. The remaining gap is that it doesn't say what an error or empty response looks like for an unavailable country.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded, but the body then enumerates the actual answer contents — CNRC, AAPI, DGI, CNAS, CASNOS, ONS, decree numbers, Moroccan CRI/OMPIC/HCP — which an agent cannot use for selection or invocation. These enumerations constitute most of the description and crowd out the operational guidance.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers supported countries, the default, the API-key constraint and the fact that no filter applies, which is everything needed to call it correctly. It does not describe the shape of a response entry, but that is minor given the enumerated contents.

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 both `lang` and `country` are already fully documented with enum, default, pattern and the country_not_available/key_required behavior. The description restates the DZ-default and the per-country coverage but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema — 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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (List) and resource (key public bodies a company deals with in a country) plus what each entry contains (official website, one-line role, source page). It is clearly distinct from siblings such as list_countries, which enumerates available datasets 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 triggering scenario, and the closing note that the list takes no filter sets expectations. It does not explicitly state when to use list_countries instead, though the schema does; the description itself stops short of naming alternatives.

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