List covered jurisdictions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destrructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying that the result includes a count and the country list, plus the exact jurisdiction count of 235. No hidden side effects or auth concerns are relevant for this read-only listing operation.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, includes the key count, and ends with the actionable downstream use, making it easy to process quickly.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers the essential facts: what is listed, how many items, what the items include, and how to use the result. There is no meaningful missing context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter guidance is needed.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('jurisdictions covered by the OilFlow regulatory matrix'), and it states the exact output (a count and country list with slugs). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like regulatory_check and regulatory_products.

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 clear context by noting that the returned slugs are 'for use in regulatory_check,' helping an agent understand when to invoke this tool first. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like regulatory_products, so it stops short of a 5.

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