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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description usefully adds return shape ('list of records'), pagination semantics ('pass next_cursor to get the next page'), and a licensing attribution obligation. Those are behavioral facts the structured fields do not carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded followed by pagination and field details, and nothing is padded. The field-type enumeration is slightly verbose but it substitutes for a missing output schema, so it earns its space.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description compensates by naming the return fields and pagination mechanism, and flags the attribution requirement. The only real gap is the absence of when-to-use guidance relative to municipal_figures.

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 all seven parameters are already self-documented; the description lists returned fields rather than input parameters, adding no syntax or filtering guidance beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific resource and scope ('Key figures per municipality, latest year'), so an agent knows it retrieves municipality KPI data for the most recent year. It does not, however, name or contrast with the sibling municipal_figures, which is presumably the same resource without the latest-year constraint.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The 'latest year' qualifier implies it is for current-year snapshots versus the historical municipal_figures sibling, but that distinction is left entirely to inference and no alternative is named.

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