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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful trait — that results are limited to 'підтверджених' (confirmed) councils — but says nothing about matching behavior (exact vs partial), pagination, how limit interacts with results, or what a match set looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and the accepted lookup keys are stated up front and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers entity scope and query keys but leaves limit semantics, result shape, and match strictness unexplained. Adequate to start a search, not enough to predict its output.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for `query` (accepts a name, an EDRPOU code, or a KATOTTG settlement code), which the bare string schema does not convey, but `limit` (default 20) is left entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb+resource (search confirmed local councils of Ukraine) and enumerates the three query keys (name, EDRPOU, KATOTTG), which separates it in spirit from list_local_councils and get_local_council. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the search-vs-list distinction.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_district_councils, list_local_councils, or get_local_council, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The 'by name/code' phrasing only hints at the query form rather than prescribing selection conditions.

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