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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the output is a listing of fields and preset scenarios, which implies a non-mutating read, but it never states explicitly that this is read-only, whether results are cached, or that the listing is scoped to a single country argument.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates representative output categories. No padding, though the trailing ellipsis is a slightly loose way to signal an open set.

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 one-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description conveys the shape of the return value (field names plus preset scenarios) but omits any indication of how the result should be used or which sibling consumes it. Adequate but not rich.

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% with a single required parameter whose ISO-code examples are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of country-specific fields like IBAN and SWIFT/BIC hints at what varies per country but adds no new semantics about the parameter itself.

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 verb (list) and resource (a country's available fields plus preset scenarios), with concrete examples of the field categories. It is reasonably distinguishable from sampuli_list_countries, which enumerates countries rather than a country's fields, though the description never names that sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus sampuli_list_countries, sampuli_list_types, or sampuli_schema, all of which sound like adjacent discovery tools. The agent must infer the entry point from the wording alone.

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