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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: 'Mirabello informs and orchestrates but does not file applications', 'Decided solely by the competent registry or court', and 'Information, not legal advice'. These caveats set correct expectations for an agent and the user.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, coverage areas, typical use cases, parameter behavior, and limitation/disclaimer. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundant restatements of the schema or annotations.

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 single optional parameter, rich output schema, and annotations, the description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It explains what will be returned, when to use it, how to pass the parameter, and what the tool does not do, leaving no critical operational gap.

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?

The schema already documents cc as an ISO alpha-2 country code with examples, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that cc is optional ('Pass cc for one jurisdiction; omit for the covered list'), which is not explicit in the schema and helps an agent decide how to invoke the tool.

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 opens with the specific resource 'LEGAL NAME CHANGE rules for a jurisdiction' and enumerates exactly what aspects it covers: permission grounds, deciding authority, applicants, process, cost, timeline, passport effects, transliteration, and foreign record persistence. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling get_* 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 gives clear usage triggers ('needed after marriage, after naturalisation, and when a non-Latin name must be rendered consistently') and precise input instructions ('Pass cc for one jurisdiction; omit for the covered list'). It does not explicitly reference an alternative sibling for exclusion, but the usage context is strong enough to guide selection.

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