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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only lookup and the purpose of the returned codes, but does not disclose matching semantics such as partial vs exact matches, case sensitivity, trimming, or what happens when many or no matches occur. Some credit is given because the tool's non-mutating nature is evident from 'Find' and 'Returns codes'.

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 compact and well structured. The main action is front-loaded, the example adds clarity, and the final sentence provides meaningful downstream guidance for using the result, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description and output schema together are mostly adequate for a simple lookup tool, but it lacks guidance on matching behavior and the limit parameter. Because there are no annotations and schema coverage is low, these gaps make the description only partially complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 only 25%, with only 'query' documented, and the description does not fully compensate. It adds meaning for table and dimension by saying the search is scoped to one table and one dimension, but it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, and only the schema's existing line covers query matching.

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?

Description clearly states the verb, resource, and scope: finding option codes by label within one dimension of one table, with a concrete suburb/geography example. It also differentiates the tool by explaining the result is for use in get_data's select, setting it apart from generic search or search_tables.

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 gives a clear context: use this when you need option codes for a dimension within a specific table, and it positions the result as an input for get_data. It does not explicitly say when not to use sibling search tools, but the scoping language ('within one dimension of one table') is enough to make selection clear.

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