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

With no annotations, description carries full burden and does so thoroughly: discloses it returns a URL and never the file itself, that report data matches other tools, that Pro/Area Pass may be required, that the link still comes back with a `locked` field indicating cost, and that reports are per postal area only. These are beyond the schema and provide essential behavioral context.

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 serving a purpose: what it is, when to use vs alternatives, and access/delimitations. No fluff; information is dense and front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers key aspects: return type (URL), use case, alternative, access restrictions, locked flag, and scope. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without further documentation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema; it reinforces that 'place' is a postal area (already in schema) and does not elaborate on year or language beyond defaults. No meaningful addition over structured fields.

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 the tool returns a download link for one postal area's printable PDF report, specifying contents (composite scores, trends, statistics table). Distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns a URL, never the file, and points to get_place_stats for answering questions. Clear verb+resource+scope.

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 offer the link when the user wants the document and to answer questions from get_place_stats instead, naming the alternative tool. Also notes reports exist per postal area only, not per municipality, guiding appropriate use.

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