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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the 80% data-coverage threshold for rankings, the inclusion of periods and sources, and the fixed nature of the for/against rules. It does not describe output structure in detail, but the added context is substantial.

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 front-loads the municipality scope, which is good, but it is delivered as a single dense sentence with multiple parentheticals. The content is relevant, yet the structure is cluttered and harder to scan than necessary. It is not wasteful, but it could be clearer with shorter sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what is returned; it does so by listing indicator types, data-coverage rules, and source/period guarantees. For a read-only single-parameter tool, this is enough to call it correctly. The main missing piece is explicit guidance on when to prefer compare_places.

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 schema already documents the accepted place formats and supported provinces. The description reinforces the single-municipality scope and mentions flatin.es publication, but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 that it returns facts for one municipality: differing indicators and fixed for/against rules on published data. It also names the covered provinces and clarifies that every number has a period and source. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling compare_places tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'For one municipality published on flatin.es', which suggests this tool is for a single-place profile rather than multi-place comparison. However, it does not explicitly say when to use compare_places instead or name any exclusion criteria. The agent can infer the context but is not given clear routing instructions.

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