nexus_cross_border_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (JSON with structured table), key identified elements, and cost (2-4 credits). It does not mention side effects or auth needs, but as an analysis tool this is sufficient.

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 a single paragraph with all key information front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: purpose, items identified, output format, usage scenario, cost. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, input, output format, and usage context well. It could explicitly mention the default legalBranch and language values, but the schema covers those. The description is largely complete for an agent to understand invocation.

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 50% (text and jurisdictions have descriptions). The description adds context for text ('hechos/contrato') and jurisdictions ('2-15 países'), but does not mention legalBranch or language, leaving their purpose inferred from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already covers half the parameters.

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 it performs a multi-jurisdictional comparison of legal treatment, listing specific aspects (applicable law, forum, tax risks, etc.). It differentiates itself from siblings like nexus_analyze (single-jurisdiction) by explicitly focusing on cross-border scenarios.

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 includes 'USAR CUANDO' with a clear scenario (client operates in multiple countries). It implies when not to use (single jurisdiction) but does not explicitly name alternative tools. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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