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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the data: counts come from separate subqueries and are never summed, plus the notion of 'CLEAN' data. This enhances transparency beyond the annotations.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary resource ('49 sovereign nodes') and then lists the key attributes. No wasted words; every clause earns its place.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential content. It explains the structure of the results and the key nuance about separate subqueries. It could mention pagination or ordering, but with no params and an output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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, so the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns. It names the output fields (GS1 GTIN, maker counts, retailer counts) and clarifies they are separate, adding meaning beyond the empty 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the 49 sovereign nodes with GS1 GTIN and per-node maker/retailer counts. It specifies the resource and the fields, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_makers or find_retailers. Still, it is specific enough to infer 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it lists all nodes, but does not mention exclusions or scenarios where siblings are preferred. An agent must infer usage from the name and context.

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