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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: pricing ($0.50, x402/USDC on Base), the conditional charge (only if at least one code converts), the per-code status taxonomy (one_to_one, split, merged, not_found, invalid, needs_review with reason), the returned summary, and the csv variant's effect. Only rate limits and invalid/oversized-input behavior go unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with verb and resource, and the dense semicolon-separated clauses keep the pricing, status vocabulary, and format behavior compact. Slightly overstuffed for a single paragraph, but nearly every clause carries operational information.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, yet the description sketches the return payload (statuses, candidates, needs_review, summary) and the billing model, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Missing only edge-case handling (duplicates, invalid codes, over-limit input) and any mention of siblings.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by clarifying the business-code context and the 'up to 50' practical cap, and by explaining what format=csv actually produces (a spreadsheet) beyond the schema's terse 'one line per pair'.

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 (Convert), a specific resource (KBLI 2020 business codes -> KBLI 2025), and the batch scope (up to 50 in one call, e.g. an OSS/NIB licence), which cleanly separates it from the singular kbli_convert sibling. An agent can pick this over the single-code tool without opening either 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 a concrete use case (all codes of a company's OSS/NIB licence) and explains the csv format choice, so the context of when this tool fits is clear. It never states exclusions or explicitly routes single-code lookups to kbli_convert, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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