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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value on top: the data is year-versioned and volatile ('change every year'), and it is sourced from official publications, which tells the agent to fetch fresh rather than cache.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence is a dense but purposeful enumeration of returned fields. The trilingual title repetition consumes space for a modest multilingual-matching benefit, keeping it short of a 5.

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 compensates by listing the returned indicators and their sources, and the annotations cover the safety profile. A single optional parameter needs no more explanation, so it is nearly complete for this tool's complexity.

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% and the single 'lang' parameter is fully documented with its enum and default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The trilingual tool naming ('показатели РК / Қазақстан көрсеткіштері') hints at the localization dimension but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (returns 2026 Kazakhstan statutory indicators) and enumerates the exact figures returned (MRP, MZP, BDO, subsistence minimum, payroll rates/caps), which clearly separates it from the sibling calculator tools. An agent can tell it is a data-lookup tool, not a calculation tool.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'instead of model memory' because the figures change every year, which is a clear condition for selecting it. It does not name a specific sibling alternative or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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