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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the taxonomy being canonical and containing codes with EN/FR labels by category, but it does not disclose pagination or filtering behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 no wasted words: the first defines what the tool is and what it classifies, the second gives concrete usage and examples. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 rich annotations, a fully described input schema, and an output schema present, the description only needs to convey the tool's selection rationale and canonical role. It does so clearly, including concrete examples of loose wording, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the schema already documents limit, query, and cursor in detail. The description adds high-level context about mapping product wording to codes but does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the input schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('normalise') and resource ('SAP module/product taxonomy') and clearly explains the tool's role: mapping loose user wording onto canonical codes. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by positioning it as the taxonomy underlying the codes the other tools filter on.

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 explicitly says to use it when normalising loose product wording like 'SAC' or 'Analytics Cloud', which gives clear context for selection. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

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