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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: every answer carries a last-checked date, official sources are returned, and the output is explicitly framed as descriptive law rather than legal advice. It does not say which countries are in the dataset or how to discover coverage.

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 purpose and only three sentences total, with no filler. The middle sentence is a dense list of returned fields, but each item is informative rather than redundant.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so well — legal model, per-topic answers, penalties, provisions, regional variation, pending bills, sources and freshness dates. For a two-parameter read-only lookup, nothing an agent needs before calling 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 description coverage is 100%, and the topics enum is documented exhaustively in the schema, so the description does not need to restate it. It only loosely signals the per-topic behavior ("for each question") and says nothing about the country parameter's accepted formats, which the schema already spells out. 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 verb and resource — it explains how one country regulates prostitution and sex work — and enumerates the deliverable (legal model, per-topic legality, penalties, statutory provisions, regional differences, pending bills, sources, last-checked dates). The scoping word "one country" implicitly separates it from compare_countries and list_countries, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Concrete example questions ("Is prostitution legal in Germany?", "Can sex workers advertise in Spain?") give a clear picture of the query shape this tool serves. It stops short of naming alternatives — an agent must infer that multi-country comparison belongs to compare_countries and country discovery to find_countries/list_countries.

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