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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the pricing model ($0.02 per call via x402/USDC on Base), the versioned source table, and that one-to-many splits are flagged. It omits error/edge behavior (e.g., invalid or unmapped codes) and any auth note beyond the payment pointer to lokalapi_info.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the operational and pricing details; there is little waste. The cost sentence is long but it is the only place that information appears, so it earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers purpose, split semantics, use case, and cost. The main gap is that it never describes the shape of the returned mapping (e.g., single code vs. list on splits), though 'equivalent(s)' hints at it.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'code' parameter is already documented in the schema (pattern ^\d{5}$, example '63122'). The description adds no format or validation detail beyond that, 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 precise verb+resource ('Convert a KBLI 2020 business code to its KBLI 2025 equivalent(s)') and names the authoritative table driving the mapping. The singular 'a ... code' implicitly contrasts with the kbli_convert_batch sibling, but no sibling is called out by name, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 a concrete trigger context ('Needed to update OSS/NIB licences after the June 2026 switch'), which tells the agent when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or route to kbli_convert_batch/kbli_search, so usage is clear but not exhaustively bounded.

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