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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral rule ('never merge unrelated answer lists'), but says nothing about output format, pagination, or how the selected level affects the result. Modest value on top of annotations.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence is a domain-specific aside rather than a usage rule.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no sibling differentiation, the description leaves real gaps in parameter meaning and when-to-use.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load for 5 parameters, yet it only vaguely touches on codelist_id and level. The meaning of classification_id, limit, and the format enum ('xlsform' vs 'simple') is left entirely unexplained.

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 and resource ('Return a structured choice list') and adds scope via 'at a selected hierarchy level,' which separates it from list_codelists or search_codes. It is clear but does not explicitly name any sibling it should be chosen over.

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 only guidance is an implicit constraint ('MICS exports require one codelist_id'), which hints at a required input but never states when to use this over list_codelists, browse_hierarchy, or search_codes. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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