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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: sorting order, the subtle 'mentioned-in' vs 'located-in' distinction, and the Nigeria-specific edge case rooted in frequency computation. These details are not disclosed by annotations and help an agent predict results, with no contradiction.

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?

Three efficiently packed sentences, each earning its place: purpose and sorting, parameter nuance, and a consequential edge case. The information is front-loaded with no redundancy or filler.

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 and no required parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what the tool lists, how it sorts, how the country filter behaves, and a notable edge case. It provides sufficient detail for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 covers limit and country descriptions but not offset, totaling 67% coverage. The description adds significant nuance to the 'country' parameter, going beyond the schema by explaining the 'mentioned-in' semantics and the Nigeria outcome, enriching parameter understanding. Limit/offset remain standard and adequately covered by schema.

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?

Clearly states it lists persons from the IWAC index, sorted by frequency, with a specific entity type that distinguishes it from sibling list tools. The verb 'List' and resource 'persons from the IWAC index' are specific and unambiguous.

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 on when to use the country filter and explains its semantics ('mentioned-in' vs 'located-in') with a concrete Nigeria edge case. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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