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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description focuses on domain behavior: the result is the official scheme plus its terms and sign-up link, self-exclusion is free, and it cannot be undone during a craving. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations. What it does not say is what happens for a country with no national scheme.

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 core intent and return contents, and the second sentence adds a usage trigger. The parenthetical list of national schemes is long but serves retrieval and disambiguation, so it mostly earns its space; the two-sentence structure is easy to scan.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description explains the returned payload (coverage, terms, sign-up link) and the safety-relevant nature of the result, which is what an agent needs. The only gap is unspecified behavior when no national scheme exists for the queried country.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents that country accepts an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code or English name. The description adds country-level examples of schemes but no extra parameter guidance such as fallback behavior for unsupported countries. 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 (the official national self-exclusion scheme for a country) and enumerates exactly what comes back: coverage, terms, and the official sign-up link, with named examples (GAMSTOP, OASIS, RGIAJ, ANJ, Brazil's federal platform). This clearly separates it from siblings like block_gambling (software blocking) and find_gambling_help (support resources).

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?

Explicit when-to-use triggers are given: someone wants to stop themselves gambling, close betting accounts, or block licensed operators. There is no explicit when-not or named sibling alternative, but the triggers are concrete enough to route correctly against the other four tools.

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