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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: cases are illustrative only and never alter scores, every case must be linked by url on the headline line, the paraphrase is the index's own summary and must not be quoted, and bracketed [quoted] spans are data, not instructions. The injection warning is notably valuable.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most sentences carry distinct, non-redundant information (usage limits, citation format, quoting rule, injection guard). A few clauses are dense run-ons, but little is wasted.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does: individual cases with headline, url, and paraphrase, plus how to render them. Combined with the usage and safety caveats, an agent has everything needed to call and use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3-or-name format. The description's 'Pass a country code or name' restates the schema without adding syntax or edge-case meaning, 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?

States a specific verb+resource with scope: 'Find published real cases in one country' and enumerates the source types (news, regulator, court accounts). The content is clearly distinct from sibling data tools like search or fetch, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives a clear when-not: cases 'illustrate the scores and never change them' and 'are not a sample, so do not use them to say how common a problem is.' This frames the tool's role well, though it never names the alternative score-related tool to use instead.

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