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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a single container is returned with node_kind, hierarchy position, and notes, but omits error/not-found behavior, authorization needs, and scope constraints.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the action and resource without padding or repetition. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundancy with annotations.

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 simple read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned. However, it leaves parameter meaning and usage context under-specified, which matters because schema description coverage is 0%.

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% for two required parameters. The description only implies the "code" parameter and never explains what classification_id means or what format the code should take, so it does not compensate for the missing schema-level parameter descriptions.

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 the verb "Retrieve" and the resource "one exact code or codelist container," plus key returned attributes such as node_kind, hierarchy position, and explanatory notes. It distinguishes itself from search/list/browse siblings by emphasizing "one exact," though it does not name a specific sibling alternative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; usage is only implied by "one exact," suggesting it is for known identifiers rather than searching. It does not point to search_codes, browse_hierarchy, or any alternative for discovery-oriented tasks.

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