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

Annotations already declare readOnlyIdempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is lighter; it still adds "Works without login", which is genuine auth context not present in the annotations. It stops short of explaining what happens on an ambiguous or unmatched term (multiple candidates vs. empty result), which is the main remaining behavioral unknown.

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 purpose and the concrete example mappings are front-loaded, and the usage caveat plus the no-login note come last where they belong. Every clause carries information; no restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers intent, input shape, output code formats and auth requirements. The one gap is result semantics: nothing says whether an ambiguous term returns several candidates, a single best match, or nothing, which matters because callers are told to rely on auto-resolution elsewhere.

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?

The description adds meaning by tying the terms to the category, region and facet kinds via its examples, and the schema's own kind/facet descriptions are already informative. However it never mentions the language and unit kinds, the 20-item batch limit, or the per-item 100-character cap, so it only partially compensates for thin parameter documentation.

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?

"Convert plain names into codes" states a specific verb and resource, and the four worked examples ('бухгалтер' -> act:6920, 'Синумерик 828' -> automation.tech, 'Усть-Каменогорск' -> kz.east_kazakhstan) make the input/output transformation concrete, including the differing code shapes per kind. An agent can tell this apart from suggest_term or search without opening the schema.

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?

"Use when unsure of a code" gives the positive trigger, and the following sentence gives the negative one: plain names can be passed directly into category/region/facet fields of other tools because unambiguous ones resolve automatically. That is an explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-call statement, which is the ceiling for this dimension.

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