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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the identifier type is auto-detected, what happens when an EDRPOU and a KATOTTG string are ambiguous, or what is returned. A read-only lookup can be assumed, but nothing is disclosed beyond the bare purpose.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier (the two identifier types) is placed immediately after the verb. Nothing in it is redundant.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input domain adequately but leaves the return value and error behavior entirely unspecified. An agent knows what to pass but not what it will get back or how failures manifest.

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% for the single 'identifier' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by naming the two accepted code systems, but gives no format details (digit counts, prefixes, or how to disambiguate the two), leaving the caller to guess at valid input shape.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Отримати місцеву раду') and names the two identifier systems accepted (ЄДРПОУ, КАТОТТГ). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_district_council or list_local_councils, so an agent must infer which entity type or lookup mode applies.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus get_district_council, search_local_councils, or list_local_councils, and no prerequisites or failure conditions. The only guidance is implicit in the identifier types mentioned.

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