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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses per-call pricing ($0.02 USDC) and that results are bilingual with source links, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, result size caps, or what an empty result means.

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?

Compact, front-loaded with the resource and its payload, followed by filtering, example, and pricing. Every sentence carries information; only minor loss is the run-on field list.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what comes back (field list, languages, source links), how to filter, and the cost. Auth/prerequisite information is the main omission.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the valid region values (hk/cn/na/eu/apac/me/global) that the schema entirely omits, plus a worked example showing limit usage. It does not explain limit semantics (default/max), keeping it from a 5.

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+resource (query global regulatory approvals tracking) and enumerates the returned fields: regulator, type, approved entity, title, abstract, date, official source link, bilingual. This is clearly distinct from siblings like query_licenses and query_issuances, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Provides an example call with region and limit, and implies filtered retrieval, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over query_licenses or query_issuances. Usage is only implied by the region filter.

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