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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does the most important part: it declares the tool is paid ($0.02 per call, x402, USDC on Base) and points to lokalapi_info, which is critical since an agent could otherwise invoke it blindly. It also states what comes back (official BPS titles, descriptions, hierarchy). It does not cover rate limits, failure/empty-result behavior, or whether calls are billed only on success.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then return content, then cost. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (paid call) is stated explicitly rather than buried. Every sentence 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?

For a 3-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return payload, cost model, and the pointer to lokalapi_info, which is close to sufficient. It stops short of explaining result ranking/exactness, empty-result behavior, or how the 'level' hierarchy relates to the 5-digit default.

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%, so the schema already documents q, level, and limit including examples and defaults; baseline 3 applies. The description only adds the language dimension ('Indonesian or English') and the reverse-lookup capability, both of which partly duplicate the schema's own q examples.

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?

The description gives a concrete verb+resource ('Find the right KBLI 2025 business classification code') plus scope (5-digit, mandatory in OSS licensing) and input type (free-text business activity in Indonesian or English). It never names or contrasts with the sibling kbli_convert, and the phrase 'or a KBLI code' as an input actually blurs the boundary with that converter, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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, and no routing to kbli_convert, kbli_convert_batch, or wilayah_* siblings. The only pointer is 'see lokalapi_info' for payment mechanics, which is not usage guidance for the search task itself. Usage must be inferred from the purpose sentence.

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