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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioural context: the result set is a bounded catalogue of 51 entries and the fields each entry carries. It stops short of stating ordering, defaults, or how the limit interacts with a 51-item set.

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 tight sentences: the return payload is front-loaded and the filtering options follow. No filler, though the clause 'with what each says, how it is used' is slightly loose phrasing for what is a list of fields.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing returns, which it does. However, for a 5-parameter tool with 0 required parameters, it omits any mention of limit (capped at 60 against a 51-source set) and lang, leaving an agent unclear on pagination and localisation behaviour.

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 only 20% (only lang is documented), so the description must compensate. It does explain three of five parameters — type (with its values), country, and text (query) — but says nothing about limit or lang, leaving the pagination behaviour of this bounded list undocumented.

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 resource (a fixed catalogue of 51 sources) and enumerates what each record contains (statement, usage, countries, check date, link), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_methodology or get_overview, but the resource is distinct enough to be 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?

It names the three filter dimensions (type, country, text) which implies when the tool is useful, but gives no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternative sibling tools for adjacent content. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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