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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the response shape (entry description, ancestor chain up to kategori, children) — genuinely useful for an agent planning the call. It says nothing, however, about behavior on an invalid or non-existent code, whether matches are case-sensitive, or whether the hierarchy is complete or truncated.

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?

One dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the exact-match lookup and then the return contents. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a single-parameter read lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what the input code looks like and what comes back. The remaining gap is the absence of any error/empty-result behavior or routing against search_kbli.

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% and the single parameter is documented, so the schema already carries the parameter load. The description restates the accepted code forms (a letter A to U, or 2-5 digits) but adds no semantics beyond the schema's pattern, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: retrieving 'One KBLI 2020 entry by code', and enumerates the returned payload (description, ancestors up to kategori, children). It reads clearly as an exact single-record lookup, but never names or contrasts with the sibling search_kbli, which is the tool's closest look-alike.

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 statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative search_kbli for when the code is unknown or only a keyword is available. Only the phrase 'by code' weakly implies exact-match usage, leaving the agent to infer the routing rule.

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