List nationalities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured metadata. The description adds useful context about the returned fields and scope, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior beyond what the schema already shows.

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?

Both sentences earn their place: the first states what the tool returns, and the second explains why an agent would use it. There is no filler or repetition of information already present in the schema or annotations.

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 simple, no-required-parameter list tool with annotations covering read-only behavior and schema covering pagination, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is returned, the scope, and the intended use case without requiring an output schema.

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%, with both cursor and pageSize already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is fine because the schema already carries the semantic burden.

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 lists the organization's nationalities and specifies the key output fields: identifier, English name, and Arabic name. This clearly separates it from sibling list tools for departments, locations, employment types, and so on.

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 provides clear usage context: use these values to resolve names to stable identifiers before filtering other tools. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can recognize it as a reference lookup tool.

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