List municipalities (shared)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the doubled 'Read-only / never writes' phrasing is largely redundant. However, the description adds genuinely non-annotated context: this is shared reference data, identical for every key (i.e. no per-key or permission scoping), and it gives a concrete lookup example ('Stockholm' → id 21).

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling linkage, and takes only a few sentences. Slight waste in stating read-only twice ('Read-only.' and 'never writes'), which duplicates the annotation and buys nothing.

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 the description correctly focuses on purpose, shared-reference semantics, and id resolution. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though a note on how paging interacts with filtering would round it out.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented with examples. The description reinforces the meaning of `code` (official municipality code, SCB kommunkod) and illustrates nameContains, but adds no syntax or behavioral detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('Look up municipality ids') and ties it directly to the consuming parameter (`municipalityId` filter of `fastighetsbenchmark_search_property_units`), making it trivially distinguishable from the other list_* siblings. An agent knows exactly what it returns (id, name, countryCode, code).

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?

Explicitly ties usage to resolving ids for the `municipalityId` filter of a named sibling tool, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not state exclusions or say when the other reference-list siblings would be preferred, but the context is clear rather than implied.

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