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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's main added value is the coverage details per country: for DZ, it includes issues count, last issue number, bilingual editions, and summaries; for MA, French only and no summaries; for TN, French and Arabic editions and no summaries. This is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only listing, this is adequate.

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 long and dense, front-loading the most important information about JORA, but it repeats country details that might be in the schema or annotations. It could be more concise by summarizing the country-specific behaviors. However, the structure is logical and the key usage guideline is at the end.

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 no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides necessary details about what data is returned per country, which is crucial for correct interpretation. It also gives clear usage guidance. The only gap is not detailing the format of the return (e.g., JSON structure), but for a listing tool, this is sufficient.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description only mentions that it takes 'only the optional lang and country,' which adds no new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 lists years covered by the JORA index, with specific details about what is returned per year. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_jo_issues (which lists issues within a year) by its focus on years. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond the implicit scope.

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?

It says 'Use it first, to see which years exist before listing the issues of a year,' which gives clear guidance on when to use it relative to list_jo_issues. It doesn't name the sibling explicitly but implies it. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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