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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: that there is no composite ranking, that weightings are client-dependent, that methodology and a de-risk note are bundled, and the 'INFORMATION, NOT ADVICE' disclaimer.

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-loaded with the resource and scope, then pillars, then the single parameter rule. It is a single dense block with several parentheticals, so it is efficient if slightly overstuffed, but no sentence is wasted.

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 return values need not be explained, yet the description still covers pillar coverage, the deliberate absence of a composite, the parameter scoping rule, methodology inclusion, and a usage caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool 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% and the cc field is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics anyway by explaining the optional behavior (one jurisdiction vs. all when omitted), which the schema's absence of required fields alone doesn't make obvious.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (fetch the Wealth Atlas sub-indices) and enumerates the six pillars returned, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling composite index by explicitly saying 'No composite ranking' and pointing to 'a client-weighted composite index available separately.'

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to scope the call: 'Pass cc for one jurisdiction, omit for all,' and names the alternative tool for weighted output. It does not, however, say when to prefer this Atlas over adjacent per-country tools like get_country, get_country_tax, or get_index.

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