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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: 'No auth required', the return field set, and the maximum of 300 municipalities. It also notes the source data portal. This enriches understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: starts with the core action, then return fields, then filters, then usage context, then auth and source. Each sentence adds value—no fluff. The inclusion of examples and counts is dense but purposeful, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (per context signals), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, filtering options, usage context for other tools, authentication requirements, and data source. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents the limit, category, and province_code parameters with enums and descriptions. The description restates filter options but adds no new parameter-level semantics. The category counts (8 metros, etc.) and demarcation code examples relate to return data, not parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List all South African municipalities') with a clear resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like samuni.finance.audit_opinions by focusing on the reference list rather than financial data. The demarcation codes mentioned tie it to other samuni tools, further clarifying its unique role.

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 explains a key usage context: demarcation codes from this tool are needed for other samuni tools. It implies when to use this tool (to obtain codes or municipality info) without explicit 'when not to' exclusions. The examples (CPT, JHB, etc.) help an agent decide to use it as a lookup/reference step.

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