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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains the pagination mechanism (next_cursor), the return shape (list of records), the output fields, and a required attribution statement. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but given the annotation coverage, this is a strong addition.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and pagination instruction, then lists output fields and attribution. Every sentence adds value: the field list is justified because no output schema exists. It is slightly long but not bloated or repetitive.

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 9 parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description compensates well by documenting the output fields, pagination, and attribution requirement. It is nearly complete, though it could mention default sorting or how the required kpi interacts with optional year filters.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the schema already fully documents parameter semantics. The description only adds a mapping for the cursor parameter ('next_cursor') and lists output fields, not input parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 resource and scope: 'Key figures per municipality and year (Kolada). Returns a list of records.' This makes the tool's purpose clear as a retrieval tool for historical municipal figures. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool municipal_figures_latest, which likely provides similar data for the latest year, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 provides context about the data granularity (municipality and year) and gives operational guidance for pagination ('pass next_cursor to get the next page'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like municipal_figures_latest, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not spelled out.

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