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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (code, level, parent, title) despite there being no output schema, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination behavior, or result ordering beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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?

Two dense sentences with the search scope front-loaded and no filler; the routing hint is tucked at the end where it belongs. Slightly compressed phrasing ('by part of the title or a code prefix') costs a little readability but wastes nothing.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the authoritative regulation and the level vocabulary. An agent could call this correctly from the description alone; only edge behavior (ordering, empty results, rate limits) is unspecified.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the q and level semantics and enumerates the five levels, adding emphasis but no syntax or format detail beyond the 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 a specific verb (Search) and resource (KBLI 2020 business-field classification, citing Peraturan BPS 2/2020), plus the two matching modes (title fragment or code prefix) and the five hierarchy levels. It is cleanly distinguishable from get_kbli, which retrieves a single code.

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 explains the search modes and routes single-code lookups elsewhere ('fetch one code for its description'), giving clear usage context. It stops short of naming the sibling tool get_kbli or stating exclusions, so the agent must infer the exact alternative.

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