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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the description only needs to add operational context — and it does: it documents the geographic/topic coverage, the filtering behavior ('only indicators with data for that place are listed'), the fallback channel not_available_for_place, and advises reading note for common confusions. No rate limits or auth details, but this is a public read search.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the when-to-use rule before the dense coverage and topic enumerations. The coverage/topic lists are long but earn their space by letting an agent decide whether the dataset even covers the question; a few lines could still be tightened.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description spells out the return shape ({indicators: [{id, name, unit, frequencies, levels, definition, note?}], place?, not_available_for_place?}), the domain coverage, and the semantics of the not_available_for_place fallback — enough for an agent to call and interpret 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by giving a concrete bilingual call example ({'query': 'tasa de paro', 'geography': 'Mataró'}) and explaining the side effect of supplying geography (matches elsewhere are surfaced in not_available_for_place).

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Find official statistical indicators') plus a distinguishing scope: natural-language lookup rather than id-based retrieval. The sentence 'Use this first when you do not know the exact indicator id' cleanly separates it from sibling id/value tools like get_series and get_value.

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?

Explicit trigger condition ('Use this first when you do not know the exact indicator id') and explicit conditional guidance for the geography parameter ('Pass geography when the question is about a specific place'). The alternative (id-based lookup) is implied rather than named, so it falls just short of the top band.

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