Check visa & entry requirements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses read-only and PII-free nature, mentions official government sources, deduped links, and output types. Does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but the behavioral detail is good.

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 two sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the key purpose. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description lists all major output components (verdict, requirements, source links, deep link). With no output schema, this is adequate. Could be more complete by mentioning any limitations (e.g., coverage of visa types), but it's sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 both parameters have clear descriptions. The description adds examples of valid inputs (ISO codes and country names) but largely reiterates what the schema already provides. Minimal added meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking visa and entry requirements for a traveler based on passport and destination. It specifies verb 'check' and resource 'visa & entry requirements', and distinguishes from sibling 'country_code'.

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?

The description implies when to use (visa check) and explicitly states it's read-only and PII-free. It doesn't provide explicit alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tool name 'country_code' hints at differentiation.

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