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

The annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and closed-world; the description adds useful behavioral detail by enumerating the response sections ('focus', 'parents', 'items') and the no-code top-level behavior. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide, though it does not discuss errors, limits, or special edge cases.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary return value, and every sentence conveys necessary information. The enumeration of returned data is dense but purposeful, and there is no filler.

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 read-only tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains both main invocation modes and the structure of the returned data, leaving no critical gap for correct selection or invocation.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameter documentation, including the normalization examples and the default behavior for 'code' and 'year'. The description adds little beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is approriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns all details for an OPS code in 'focus', plus parents in 'parents' and children in 'items', and describes the no-code root catalog behavior. It names the resource and the action precisely, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ops_search or opsalpha_get, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

The description gives clear operating context: pass a specific OPS-Kode to get full details, or omit the code to obtain the top catalog level. It does not, however, provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as ops_search or opsalpha_get.

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