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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: time dimension values run oldest to newest, and there is no unit field because the title names the unit — a real caveat that prevents misinterpretation of returned dimensions.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the return content and followed by the ordering rule and the unit caveat. The trailing 'Data from Geostat.' is redundant with the title and the repeated source mention, a small waste in an otherwise tight definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be restated, and the description instead supplies the non-obvious semantics an agent needs: dimension ordering and the absence of a unit field. Little is missing for a two-parameter read tool; only the language parameter goes unaddressed in prose.

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%, including the code format example and the ka/en language options, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and never mentions the language parameter at all, leaving it at the baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: returns the title and dimensions of one Geostat table, with the code and text of each value. It also explicitly positions itself relative to stats_get_cells ('Read it before...'), so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: call this before stats_get_cells. That is a clear usage condition tied to a named sibling. It stops short of stating when not to use it or how it relates to stats_search_tables for obtaining the code, so it is not a full when/when-not map.

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