Asylum decisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context on what is returned (recognized, complementary protection, rejected, otherwise closed, plus recognition rate) and the default role semantics, but says nothing about coverage limitations, granularity, or rate/source caveats.

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 compact clauses with the core output being front-loaded; every part contributes. Minor duplication of the role semantics that already appears in the schema description, but no filler.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety and open-world behavior, the description need not explain returns. It supplies the category breakdown and role default, leaving only minor gaps around applicability relative to siblings.

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%, so all five parameters including year_from/year_to defaults and the role enum are already documented. The description's restatement of the default role adds little beyond the schema, meriting the 3 baseline for a well-covered schema.

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 ("decisions on individual asylum applications per year") and enumerates the outcome categories plus the recognition rate, which is more informative than a bare name restatement. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g., asylum_applications), so the distinction is left implicit.

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 clarifies the default of role ("asylum" = decided IN the country) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against alternatives like asylum_applications, refugee_population, or durable_solutions. Usage is only weakly implied.

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