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). The description goes further by disclosing the dataset's coverage limits — that ~$9bn sits in unindexed markets and that India/Vietnam/Indonesia/Thailand have no local-currency stablecoin — which is material context for interpreting results. It does not, however, cover return mechanics such as pagination.

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 routing instruction is front-loaded, but the body drifts into extensive market trivia (¥1tn consortium chain, eighteen banks, $2.2bn in 2026, the 4 February 2027 date) that is engaging yet marginal for deciding whether to invoke the tool. The core guidance could have been delivered in a third of the length.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the usage conditions and coverage caveats an agent needs, missing only minor operational detail such as result volume or pagination for the all-markets case.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's only parameter guidance ('Omit `country` for every market') repeats the schema's own text and adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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?

The opening clause states a specific verb and resource — which countries the dataset can and cannot see into, and why. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_market_stats and get_country_registers, and it explicitly claims the 'what is tokenized in Japan/Korea' question.

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 trigger condition explicitly ('Call this before stating what a market holds, or before quoting any total as if it were the world') and redirects from a general search to this tool for country-level tokenization questions. Both when-to-use and the alternative approach are stated.

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