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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates a read-like lookup by mapping a code to output fields, which implies no side effects, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or what happens for unknown member codes. This is adequate for a simple resolver but not fully transparent.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the input and three outputs with no wasted words. The essential information is front-loaded in the input-to-output mapping.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity tool, the description is largely complete: it names the input and the key output categories. There is no output schema and no mention of error behavior, but the agent can still determine how to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the single 'code' parameter with format guidance ('Member code, e.g. CH') and maxLength. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that the input is a member code, so it meets the baseline without enriching parameter semantics.

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 clear input-to-output mapping: 'Member code → residency status, serving endpoint, and Azure region.' This identifies the resource and result, and the title 'Resolve one jurisdiction' reinforces the singular scope. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like list_jurisdictions or resolve_carrier, so differentiation is mostly 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?

The arrow phrasing implies use when you have a member code and need residency status, serving endpoint, and Azure region. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over siblings like list_jurisdictions or get_residency_receipt, nor any exclusions or alternative routing.

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