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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing missing-data, provenance, disclosure, and geography-and-time-only join rules, which go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand what kind of result to expect.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then packs necessary qualifiers into a compact list. No filler or repetition of the title; every word contributes to agent understanding.

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 parameterless read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential content: what data is returned, for which countries, and under which join/missing-data rules. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so parameter detail is not needed. The description does not waste space on parameters and instead focuses on output semantics, which is appropriate for a parameterless read-only tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('official country-level China, Pakistan, and Myanmar aggregates'), plus distinctive join and provenance rules. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_palimpsest_bridge and get_palimpsest_bri_context.

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 establishes clear context: this tool is for official country-level corridor aggregates for three specific countries, with particular data-quality and join-rule constraints. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the specificity makes the intended use inferable.

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