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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description must carry the rest, and it does: it discloses that only Codemate-verified facts are returned and that absence of a field means the fact is unpublished, so the agent must not infer. That is genuine behavioral guidance beyond the safety hint, though it says nothing about freshness, response shape, or caching.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, routing rule, and the no-inference guarantee. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of saying what comes back (company facts) and guaranteeing completeness. It leaves only one minor gap for a one-parameter read tool: it never mentions that results are drawn from a language-specific edition.

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%; the single lang parameter already documents the en/fi enum and the English default. The description adds nothing about language editions, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get authoritative facts about Codemate as a company') plus the scope of that data (what it does, legal entities, other published material). An agent can distinguish this from get_contact_info or get_page_data without inspecting any schema.

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 ('when asked to describe or introduce Codemate') and an explicit exclusion with named alternatives ('rather than assembling an answer from service pages and articles'). This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use statement.

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