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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses registry-based jurisdiction resolution, exclusion of non-approved authority domains, explicit missing/unavailable states, and the research-not-legal-advice nature. It stops short of describing return format or rate limits, but the disclosed traits are substantive.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: main purpose, registry constraint, exclusion rule, return state, non-legal disclaimer, example, and alternative mode. The JSON example is compact and informative. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, how jurisdictions resolve, what is excluded, global list behavior, and legal limitations. Minor gaps remain (e.g., exact response structure), but nothing that would prevent a correct call.

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?

The schema already documents jurisdiction with an example, and description adds registry-resolution context. Limit has no schema description, and the description only implies it via the example and 'bounded global list'. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the undocumented limit parameter.

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, resource, and scope: 'Get gambling regulatory context for a jurisdiction plus recent source-linked enforcement records.' This clearly differentiates it from all sibling tools, which are about casino bonuses, audits, and comparisons—none overlap with regulatory intelligence.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: for a jurisdiction, with an example, and explains the global-list behavior when jurisdiction is omitted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool provides regulatory context, so the usage guidance is sufficient.

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