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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false (a closed dataset), so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing volatility ('rules change frequently'), the verification obligation (central bank/local counsel), and an explicit 'information, not legal/tax/financial advice' disclaimer — meaningful context 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?

Front-loads the core question, then the returned fields, then the parameter modes, then the disclaimer — a logical order with no filler. The concrete examples (India LRS, China SAFE) are illustrative rather than padding, though the sentence is dense and long.

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 2-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, parameter behavior, and the important caveat that exchange-control rules are volatile and not advice. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them: 'pass cc for one jurisdiction; omit for all, or filter by regime.' It confirms the omit-for-all default but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific framing question ('can money legally LEAVE this country, and how much?') and enumerates exactly what is returned: exchange-control regime, annual outbound allowance, cash-declaration threshold, regulator, and implications for funding investment-migration. The verb+resource ('capital controls') is unambiguous and no sibling (get_banking_access, get_emigration_flows, withholding_map) overlaps this scope.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing ('what it means for FUNDING an investment-migration programme'), which tells the agent the context in which to reach for it, and it explains the cc/regime parameter modes. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it (e.g., vs get_banking_access or flag_cfc_poe_risk), so selection guidance is only partial.

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