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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds no contradictory side effects. It provides no additional behavioral detail beyond listing/finding, but no side-effect disclosure is required here.

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 text is short and front-loaded with the main verb, but the parenthetical '(Konzept, Codeliste, Nomenklatur, Merkmal)' and the dangling 'norm.' do not earn their place and could confuse readers.

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 no output schema and five parameters, the description is too thin: it does not describe what entries the list contains, how pagination works, what registration_status means, or how this relates to get_concept/search_codelist_entries.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and five parameters, the description must compensate, but it only hints at the 'publisher' parameter. lang, page, limit, and registration_status are left unexplained, and registration_status in particular is not self-explanatory.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('List ... harmonised concepts and code lists') and adds a concrete use case ('find a code list by publisher'). However, the parenthetical synonyms and trailing 'norm.' add noise, and it does not fully distinguish from i14y.get_concept or i14y.search_codelist_entries.

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?

It gives one explicit use case ('use to find a code list by publisher'), but it does not state when not to use it, mention pagination/registration_status filtering, or point to sibling tools like i14y.search_codelist_entries as alternatives.

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