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 discloses key behavioral aspects: returns exact or approximate relations, includes sources and documented path, refuses to chain non-exact relations, and requires business validation for non-exact matches. These are important constraints that an agent needs to know. However, it doesn't describe pagination, error handling, or performance aspects, but for a lookup tool, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds critical information: first states what it does, second explains behavior, third adds a constraint. No word is wasted.

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?

Given no output schema, the description gives some idea of the return value (relation exact or approximate, sources, path). It covers the tool's purpose, constraints, and validation needs. However, it could be improved by explicitly stating that it only supports single-step mappings (no chaining) and perhaps listing the exact correspondence tables it uses, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 low (33%), with only the 'code' parameter having a description. The 'source' and 'target' parameters have enums but no description. The tool description adds context by explaining the overall purpose and the three parameters are intuitive given the classification systems. However, it doesn't add details about parameter combinations or edge cases beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding correspondences between specific classification systems (NOGA, NACE, ISIC), returning exact or approximate relations, sources, and documented path. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on crosswalking between classification codes, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (for cross-version correspondence lookup) and when not to use it (refuses to chain two non-exact relations). It also mentions the requirement for business validation for non-exact matches, which is a clear usage guideline. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the domain-specific nature makes it clear that only this tool can perform crosswalking.

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