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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral detail — that the answer is tied to a rule-set version and the regulator's page — but says nothing about freshness, caching, or auth, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

Two sentences with the question leading, followed by the outcome taxonomy. Dense but every clause carries information; only the 'Product type by market' fragment is slightly redundant with the preceding sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is the input contract for two mandatory, undocumented, enum-less parameters — a real gap for a lookup tool, but not a crippling one.

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 0% and neither parameter has an enum, yet the description does not state the expected format for 'market' (ISO code? name?) or what values 'product_type' accepts. The enumeration of food/special-class/not-permitted reads as outcomes rather than accepted inputs, leaving both required parameters semantically ambiguous.

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 resource (a market's classification of a product type) and enumerates the exact outcome classes it returns: food, special class (with subcategories), or not permitted. That is far more concrete than the name alone, though it never states the action as a verb and relies on a rhetorical question to frame the purpose.

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?

No when-to-use condition is given, and no sibling is named or contrasted. With near neighbors like resolve_jurisdiction, get_notification_requirements and gate_transaction in the same family, the agent gets no help deciding whether this lookup is the right one or whether it precedes or follows those tools.

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