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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: it lists the returned fields (canonical URN, governing layers, OCD-ID, Wikidata QID, precision, reason, version), states that IP addresses are refused and not echoed, and mentions the rate limit. This is rich behavioral detail that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes important exclusions. However, it is somewhat lengthy and could be tightened; every sentence is informative but some details (e.g., the license) could be trimmed.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description fully explains the return values and edge cases. For a read-only tool with clear annotations and high schema coverage, the description is complete and leaves no gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a few examples (FR, PR, EU, XK, US-CA, GB-ENG) and explains that country and region can be sent as two arguments, but it does not introduce new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

State a specific verb (maps) and resource (ISO 3166 code to UnGovr jurisdictions), and names the source crosswalk. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_domain_jurisdiction, which handles domains rather than codes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (mapping what an edge already knows) and when not to use it (never resolves IP addresses, cities, postal codes). It also notes that Cloudflare's XX and T1 return a reason, not a guess.

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