Look up a registry code-list (FI / CZ / CH)

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it's free, returns a flat object, and caches data (with a fresh parameter to bypass cache). No contradictions 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?

Well-structured with clear sections for each jurisdiction, using bullet points and consistent formatting. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Despite the tool simplicity and rich annotations/schema, the description provides all necessary context: jurisdiction codes, available code-lists, language support, return format, pricing, and error handling for unsupported jurisdictions. Output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the language parameter's effect (FI only, CZ ignores) and the fresh parameter's purpose (bypass cache), as well as elaborating on code-list identifiers beyond the schema's enum-like list.

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 clearly states the tool resolves registry code-lists to human-readable descriptions, with specific jurisdiction examples (FI/CZ/CH) and explicit verb 'Resolve' and resource 'registry code-list'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on other data like company profiles or searches.

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 explains when to use this tool: for decoding values in jurisdiction_data fields. It implies not to use it for other jurisdictions (returns 501), but does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not scenarios. Given the clear context of use, it's strong but lacks explicit exclusions.

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