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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: pagination via cursor, that missing codes surface in not_found, that area_group exact lookups expand to member countries, and that matching is case/accents/punctuation-insensitive. It omits nothing critical and adds real context on a lower bar.

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?

Purpose and the enumeration of topics are front-loaded, and the second sentence's routing to ilostat_describe_indicator is high-value. The long comma-separated topic list overlaps with the schema enum, which is mild redundancy, but every clause is informative and no sentence is filler.

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 a rich 7-parameter schema, full coverage descriptions, and an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers topics, filtering, exact-code lookup, pagination, and sibling routing, leaving only minor gaps such as how next_cursor is returned.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema: the X01 aggregate convention for area_group, the ILO_GEO_ form tolerance, and which topics accept which lookup codes — useful disambiguation that the enum alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Decode ILOSTAT's code vocabulary') and enumerates exactly what gets listed (ref areas, groups, databases, subjects, sexes, breakdown codes, sources, flags, notes, frequencies). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ilostat_describe_indicator by contrasting ILOSTAT-wide vocabularies with the codes one dataset uses.

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?

Names the two operating modes ('Filter by text or look up exact codes') and flags that long topics paginate with a cursor, plus the alternative tool for dataset-specific codes. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., when a numeric query is the right call instead), so it falls just short of a 5.

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