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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: hierarchical codelists are surfaced one level at a time and drilled into with 'expand', while flat codelists are paginated with 'offset'. That is real operational context, though it stops short of noting rate limits or empty-result behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then the trigger, then the mechanics, then the workflow. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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, return values need not be explained; the description covers when to call, how levels/pagination work, and chaining to build_url. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so 'expand' and 'offset' are already documented in the schema. The description still adds value by explaining the hierarchical-vs-flat model that determines which of those two parameters is relevant, going beyond the per-parameter schema text.

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+resource (browse the available code list) and scopes it precisely to ONE dimension, one level or page at a time. This distinguishes it from the broader 'inspect' sibling that only shows whether a list is truncated.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when inspect shows a dimension with more codes than it can display') with concrete examples of large codelists. It also names the surrounding workflow (discover -> inspect -> browse_dimension_codes -> build_url), so the agent knows where this fits relative to siblings.

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