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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the paginated return shape and how to advance pages, plus the exact output fields and their types.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the dataset first and then the return/pagination and fields. It is telegraphic but every sentence carries useful information, with minimal waste.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields and their types, and it explains cursor-based pagination. Input filtering options are fully covered by the schema, so the description is adequately complete for this data-listing tool.

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 every input parameter including the year equality filter, range filters, limit, and cursor. The description's field list describes output columns, not input semantics, so it adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the specific resource (foreign guest nights) and scope (per country and year), which distinguishes it from the total guest_nights and the county-level guest_nights_by_county siblings. However, it is a noun phrase that echoes the title rather than a verb-led statement of what the tool does.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as guest_nights or guest_nights_by_county. The only usage hint is pagination behavior ('pass next_cursor'), which is a mechanic, not a selection criterion.

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