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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that income can be fetched at municipality or county level while unemployment and wages are only province-level, which directly shapes what queries will succeed.

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 metric definitions are front-loaded in a single compact sentence with no filler. The nested quoting is slightly hard to parse, but every clause conveys a topic-to-geography mapping that earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile. The description supplies the topic/geography semantics an agent needs; only pagination behavior and the fact that name matches province or municipality names are left implicit.

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 75%, and the schema already documents name, level (including 'For income, default gmina') and limit. The description largely restates the topic values and the level-for-income relationship rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most of the weight.

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 names the three concrete metrics (income, unemployment, wages) and the geographic granularity of each, so an agent can tell what data this returns. It is clearly distinct from macro-level siblings like get_macro_indicator, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_dataset or get_europe_data, which also cover regional statistics.

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 topic enumeration implies when to pick this tool, and the closing 'Filter by name' hints at the main use pattern. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no statement of when this is the wrong choice versus get_dataset or get_macro_indicator.

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