Check interface restrictions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results split into 'declared' and 'observed' restrictions, which is genuinely new context, but says nothing about the shape or size of the response.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, nothing padded. The second sentence partially restates the first, keeping it just short of maximally tight.

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 carries the burden of hinting at return content; 'declared and observed' does part of that job but leaves the result structure, and behavior when no country is supplied, to inference. Adequate for a simple 2-parameter read, but not complete.

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 parameters documented in-schema (ISO-3166 alpha-2 code, protocol name/identifier). The description's "optionally for a country" adds only the notion of optionality, already carried by default null in the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads 'declared and observed geo-restrictions' for a DeFi interface/protocol. The 'declared and observed' pairing is informative. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling list_restricted_interfaces, leaving ambiguity about which to use.

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?

"Use this when checking a protocol's interface restrictions, optionally for a country" gives an implied trigger condition but offers no exclusions or alternatives. With list_restricted_interfaces in the sibling set, an explicit routing statement would have been valuable.

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