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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the useful multilingual matching trait, but says nothing about match semantics (substring vs prefix vs fuzzy), result ordering, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the follow-up pointer comes second. Nothing here needs trimming.

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 simple lookup tool with a small flat schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials, but with 0% schema coverage it should at least mention the result shape (code plus matched name) and mention paging given the limit/offset parameters.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning — but it only implies that 'query' is a locality name and says nothing about 'limit' or 'offset'. The multilingual note is the sole added semantic, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Find CBS locality codes by name') and immediately scopes it to four languages. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_locality by making clear this returns codes while get_locality consumes them.

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?

Provides a clear usage context by naming the follow-up tool ('Use the code with get_locality'), which chains the workflow. It stops short of saying when not to use this tool or whether an exact-name lookup is available instead of search.

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