lookup_jurisdiction

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only lookup and specifies the returned content (DPA, legislation, links). However, it does not disclose behavioral nuances such as what happens when no jurisdiction matches, whether matching is case-sensitive, or any limitations on the region filter. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, with the first front-loading the core action and scope ('Look up privacy-law status...') and the second giving concrete use cases. No redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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 lookup tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: scope (240 jurisdictions), output content (authority, legislation, links), and typical use cases. It lacks details on response format or error handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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% with descriptive parameter explanations (e.g., 'country name or fragment'). The description adds the '240 jurisdictions' context and use cases but does not materially enhance parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'look up' and clearly identifies the resource: 'privacy-law status for a country or region across 240 jurisdictions'. It enumerates the output components (data protection authority, legislation, links), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on FAQs, pain points, research papers, etc.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use for "is there a privacy law in X" and cross-border transfer questions.' This gives clear context for when to choose this tool over siblings, though it does not mention specific alternatives or when not to use it.

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