migrationagent.review

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses the 8-match cap, what fields come back (MARN, agency profile URL), and critically that this is a static copy of the OMARA register rather than a live check, with a required user-facing caveat. That data-freshness disclosure is behavioral information the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then result shape and limit, then the caveat. No redundancy — each sentence adds a distinct fact an agent needs.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers purpose, result cardinality, returned fields, and the important limitation about register staleness. Nothing an agent needs to call or correctly represent the result 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents both accepted forms with examples ('Jane Citizen', '1234567'). The description's 'by name or MARN' restates the schema without adding format handling, partial-match behavior, or ambiguity resolution rules, so it sits at the baseline.

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: checking whether a person is a currently registered migration agent by name or MARN, plus finding their agency. The person-focused scope implicitly differentiates it from the agency-oriented siblings, but the description never explicitly contrasts with search_migration_agencies or get_migration_agency, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

'Use this to check whether a person appears as a currently registered migration agent' gives a clear triggering condition, and the closing instruction to point users to the OMARA register to confirm is actionable usage guidance. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use cases or naming a sibling as the alternative for agency-level lookups.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the review list is capped at 8 and mirrors the profile page's first-page selection, and agency-supplied fields are frequently empty and should be read as 'unknown' rather than absent data. That nullability and truncation guidance is exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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, front-loaded with the invocation condition, then a dense but purposeful enumeration of what comes back. Every clause (review cap, MARN, empty-field caveat) carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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 read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers invocation context, payload shape, truncation, and null semantics. Nothing needed to call it correctly or interpret a sparse result 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema description already explains that the id comes from search_migration_agencies or find_registered_agent and is never a URL. The description's 'using its returned id' restates that without adding format or validation detail, so the 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 — 'read one agency's public profile' — and situates it in the workflow ('after a search, using its returned id'), which separates it from the search/list siblings. An agent can tell immediately this is the single-record detail fetch rather than a query tool.

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?

Gives clear usage context: call it after a search and pass the id that search returned. It does not name an alternative or state when-not to use it (e.g. versus list_agency_locations for multi-location agencies), so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world tool, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context that annotations can't express: results are two-mode (cities with counts vs. suburbs for a given city) and the returned names are valid inputs to another tool. It doesn't mention that unknown city values return nothing, which would be a small but helpful addition.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler, and the usage trigger is front-loaded ahead of the behavioral detail. Each sentence contributes distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains — the trigger condition, the two listing modes, and the cross-tool contract with search_migration_agencies — is fully covered.

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% and both parameters are already documented, including the city/suburb mode switch and the state enum. The description reinforces the mode switch ('with city set, the suburbs of that city') but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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: lists Australian cities with agency counts, or suburbs when a city is supplied. It also distinguishes itself from search_migration_agencies by describing the contrast between enumeration and lookup, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a 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?

The first sentence gives an explicit trigger condition ('when a location search finds nothing or the place is ambiguous'), and the last sentence names the follow-up tool and how to use its output. Nothing about when to choose this over its siblings is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations only declare read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds the substantive traits: 10 results per page, default relevance ordering that includes paid featured placement, and a featured_placement marker the agent should disclose when presenting results. That disclosure obligation is behavioral guidance an agent could not derive from any structured field.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the trigger, then output shape, then the exclusion. No filler, and the paid-placement caveat is placed where it will be read before results are presented.

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?

Six optional parameters, an output schema, and full annotation coverage; the description supplies the trigger, what comes back, pagination cadence, ranking caveat and a scope exclusion. Nothing an agent needs in order to call or present this correctly 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%, so enum values, defaults and ranges are already documented, and the description's parameter-relevant content (MARN, city/suburb matching, relevance ordering) largely duplicates it. Baseline 3 applies; the featured-placement explanation is the one piece of added meaning.

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 ('find or compare registered migration agencies in Australia') and enumerates the searchable dimensions (city, suburb, state, agency name, agent name, MARN). An agent can tell immediately what this tool does; the only soft spot is mild overlap with find_registered_agent, which it does not name.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('use this when someone wants to find or compare...') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use for visa advice or eligibility'). It stops short of routing to the sibling tools (find_registered_agent, get_migration_agency, list_agency_locations) for agent-level or detail lookups, so the boundary with siblings is inferred rather than stated.

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