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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation ('List' matches a read-only operation), and adds useful context: results are paged and include names and validity. However, it does not explain the parenthetical categories or the meaning of 'norm.', and it does not disclose behavior like matching semantics beyond what the schema already states. No contradiction with annotations.

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 main clause is front-loaded and efficient ('List the codes of one code-list concept, paged, with names and validity'), which is good. But the parenthetical list and trailing 'norm.' are unexplained noise that could confuse agents, and the description does not follow the conventional shape of stating purpose then usage conditions cleanly.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does partially ('with names and validity'). However, it leaves two ambiguities unresolved: the meaning of the parenthetical terms and 'norm.', and it does not mention the concept_id prerequisite (that the caller must first have a CodeList concept id from a lookup tool). Moderately complete but with real gaps.

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 80% (4 of 5 params documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by noting the tool is 'paged' (mapping to page/limit) and that results carry 'names and validity', but it adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond the schema. The unexplained parenthetical does not clarify any parameter.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('List the codes of one code-list concept') and states a concrete purpose ('use to resolve official codes'), which distinguishes it from sibling i14y.list_concepts (listing concepts vs. entries within one concept). However, the parenthetical '(Code, Codeliste, Kanton, Geschlecht, Nomenklatur)' is unexplained and the trailing 'norm.' is an unclear artifact that slightly muddies an otherwise clear statement.

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 phrase 'use to resolve official codes' implies a use case and gives some contextual guidance. But it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, nor does it name any alternative among the many siblings (e.g., i14y.list_concepts for finding concepts before resolving their codes). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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