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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: return content varies materially by country (ids/families/physician counts for US vs category names/doctor counts for NZ), and the 'Free' tags signal that at least one path may carry a cost.

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 one-line purpose followed by a clean per-country breakdown; each line carries distinct information. There is mild redundancy in restating the country= codes that the schema enum already lists, but overall it is tight and scannable.

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 and a single enum parameter, the description does the necessary work of explaining what each country returns and flagging the free/paid distinction. It is nearly complete for a lookup tool, with the only shortfall being no guidance on when to prefer it over sibling lookups.

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 enum is already documented, so baseline is 3. The description nevertheless adds real value by spelling out what each enum value actually yields (US = ids/families/physician counts; NZ = Healthpoint categories; FR = RPPS/Ameli official names), which is output semantics tied to the parameter that the schema does not convey and no output schema exists to cover.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Specialty names one country's database uses') and immediately specifies the three country scopes with what each returns. This is clearly a specialty-listing tool distinct in resource from siblings like list_procedures or lookup_terms, though it never names a sibling to differentiate against.

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?

It gives clear guidance on how to select the country parameter and notes NZ/FR are 'Free', implying a cost consideration for US. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus list_procedures, lookup_terms, or about_database, so tool-level selection 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.