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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it sets the expectation that output is a descriptive legal position rather than advice, and it enumerates the substantive dimensions the response will cover, which primes correct interpretation of the result. It stops short of stating depth, jurisdictional coverage limits, or caveats about stale law.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, and each subsequent clause names a distinct output dimension rather than padding. The result is a long compound sentence, but every clause earns its place by signalling what the agent will receive. Minor readability cost from being a single dense run-on.

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?

With one required, fully documented parameter, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description only needs to establish scope and framing, which it does. The informational-not-advice caveat and the content enumeration are the right things to include given the output schema already defines return structure. Left unstated: jurisdictional coverage breadth and how the result should be interpreted downstream.

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 parameter description is richer than the tool description, documenting alpha-2 codes, country names in 11 languages, and the input_notes echo. The tool description's 'Use ISO alpha-2' merely nudges the preferred form and slightly understates the accepted inputs, so it adds marginal information over the schema. 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?

States a specific resource and scope: the cross-border succession conflict-of-laws position for a jurisdiction, enumerating the exact determinations returned (governing law, Brussels IV applicability, professio juris, clawback, renvoi, trust/foundation interaction). This is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as forced_heirship_risk, choice_of_law_options, or matrimonial_regime_screen, leaving that boundary to inference.

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 only directives are 'Informational, not advice' and 'Use ISO alpha-2', neither of which tells an agent when to pick this tool over the neighbouring forced_heirship_risk or choice_of_law_options tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing is given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the content list.

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