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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns regulatory data, includes a disclaimer ('Information, not legal/tax/financial advice'), and warns that exchange-control rules change frequently, advising verification. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, enriching the agent's understanding of the tool's operational context.

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 informative but somewhat verbose. It opens with a rhetorical question and includes marketing-like phrasing ('uniquely', 'missed by every mobility-only analysis') that adds length without essential operational detail. While the key usage and output information is present and front-loaded, the extra flourishes could be trimmed for conciseness. It remains structured and readable, but not maximally efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 optional params, no required fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the exact data returned (regime, allowance, threshold, regulator, funding implications), explains invocation patterns, and adds a disclaimer about regulatory changes. The output schema covers return structure, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this 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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds the usage semantics that both parameters are optional and explains the effect of omitting cc ('omit for all') and using the regime filter, which the schema does not convey. It also clarifies that cc is an ISO alpha-2 code, though the schema already states that. This extra guidance justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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's function: returning exchange-control regime, outbound allowance, cash-declaration threshold, regulator, and implications for funding investment-migration. It uses specific verbs and resource references, and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'missed by every mobility-only analysis.' The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates this tool from get_mobility_optionality and other related tools.

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 description provides explicit usage patterns: 'Pass cc for one jurisdiction; omit for all, or filter by regime.' It explains optional parameter usage and offers context for when to apply (deciding whether a client can pay for a CBI/RBI programme). However, it does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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