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 free. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the volatility caveat — exchange-control rules change frequently, verify with the central bank or local counsel — and by characterizing the payload as informational rather than legal/tax advice. It does not discuss coverage gaps or staleness dating of records, which keeps it below a 5.

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 scoping question is front-loaded, the return fields are packed into a single clause, and call mechanics plus caveats close it out. Capitalized emphasis and parenthetical examples are dense rather than padded — no sentence is redundant given the field list it conveys.

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 the description need not document return shapes, yet it still sketches the key fields, which helps the agent judge fitness. Caveats, call mechanics, and the practical use case (funding an investment-migration programme) are all covered. The only real omission is the absence of any sibling routing, which is minor for such a distinctly scoped resource.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with an enum on regime, so the baseline applies. The description adds only the operational nuance that omitting cc returns all jurisdictions and that regime narrows the set, which is marginal value over what the schema already states as 'optional filter'. No guidance on result volume or ordering when cc is omitted.

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?

Opens with a concrete framing question and then enumerates exactly what comes back: the exchange-control regime, the outbound allowance/remittance scheme with real examples (India LRS, China SAFE), the cash-declaration threshold, and the regulator. That is a specific verb-plus-resource identity an agent can match without opening the schema. It stops short of naming the nearest sibling (e.g. get_banking_access or get_mobility_optionality), so differentiation is inferred from the resource label rather than stated.

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 final lines give call mechanics — 'Pass cc for one jurisdiction; omit for all, or filter by regime' — and the intended purpose (assessing whether an investment can be lawfully moved out for a funding decision). But there is no explicit when-not-to-use clause and no sibling is named as an alternative, so routing between this and adjacent tools like get_banking_access or get_mobility_optionality is left to the agent.

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