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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the output is a curated set of facts, each with a citation URL and last-verified date, and explicitly states it is not a full regulatory database. This goes beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by scope limitations and output details. Every word adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, the scope of data, and the meaning of parameters. It does not mention error handling or empty results, but those are minor for this tool and not critical for correct invocation.

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 provides only types and titles for subject and market, with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by giving example values ('childrens_products' for subject, 'US' for market) and clarifying that subject refers to a product category and market to a geographic region. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 retrieves cited market-entry requirements for a product subject in a given market, with a concrete example (subject='childrens_products', market='US'). It also lists the specific regulations covered, making it distinct from siblings like search_recalls or list_changes.

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 implies usage context by noting it's a small curated set and not a full regulatory database, which tells the agent it's not for exhaustive searches. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool in favor of siblings.

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