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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses diacritic tolerance, the normal occurrence of multiple results, and the inhabitant-count-with-year detail. It omits no-match behavior and exact output structure, but for a read-only search tool this is reasonable coverage.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a precise purpose statement, followed by compact, useful guidance on usage and result interpretation. Every sentence contributes information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential integration behavior: returning a code, handling multiple results, and preserving the year with inhabitant counts. It lacks explicit error/no-match behavior, but it is adequate for selecting and invoking this search tool correctly.

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 meaning beyond the schema by giving concrete query examples, explaining the three kind values, and noting that multiple results are normal. It does not add to the limit parameter, but the schema already documents defaults and bounds.

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 first sentence clearly states it resolves a place name to the code used by other Suomiatlas tools, with explicit resource types (postal areas, municipalities, regions) and examples. This distinguishes it from analysis-focused sibling tools by positioning it as the initial lookup step.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this first whenever the user names a place rather than a code,' providing a clear when-to-use trigger. It also advises handling shared names by presenting choices, though it does not explicitly name alternatives for when a code is already known.

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