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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the specific output fields (narrative_facts, chart_data, available, reason), the conditional has_subcodes caveat, the cached data window, and the PRODCOM gating behavior. It also sets expectations by stating the tool is deliberately thin. It doesn't address error cases or performance, but for a read-only report helper this is solid.

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 extremely compact—two sentences—yet packs in the tool's purpose, scope, exclusions, return shape, and a cross-reference to a sibling convention. No wasted words, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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 existence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return fields, and it wisely points to get_market_summary for the shape convention. It covers the essential context: what data it provides, what it omits, and how it fits into the report-section helper family. It could have added a brief note on failure scenarios, but available/reason are mentioned, making it reasonably complete.

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% for both parameters (lang and query), with rich field-level details inside the query object. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond pointing out that the query is the same request body all endpoint endpoints take, which is useful context but not a semantic enhancement. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 this is a report-section helper for 'Scope & definitions' and enumerates precisely what it returns: resolved product code/label, sub-code bundling caveat, cached data-coverage window, and PRODCOM mapping availability. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly noting what it deliberately omits (no full CN hierarchy or sibling enumeration), setting it apart from sibling tools like get_subtree and get_chapters.

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 provides clear context: it's a report-section helper meant for the 'Scope & definitions' section, and says it is 'deliberately thin' and excludes full CN hierarchy/sibling enumeration, implying when not to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for those excluded capabilities, so it falls short of full when-not/alternative guidance.

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