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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: results are ordered by soonest known next step, and the returned set is limited to pending items. It does not describe record contents, but that is minor for a list tool.

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 short sentences with the resource and ordering stated first and the optional filtering second. No filler, though the second sentence is a fragment rather than a complete clause.

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 read-only, two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering and filtering adequately. Only the shape of an individual pending-change record is left unspecified.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with enums and examples. The description only restates that filtering is possible by one country or one region; it does not clarify precedence if both are supplied, so 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?

The description names a specific resource ('bills, consultations and reviews in progress that would change how prostitution is regulated'), which clearly separates it from the sibling tools that query current law or country facts. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

'Optionally for one country or one region' implies how filtering works, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of get_country_law or compare_countries. The usage context (upcoming reforms vs. current law) must be inferred.

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