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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context the annotations don't: the payload shape (name plus link) and the fact that it covers only the codes representments.com explains, which implies an incomplete catalog relative to the networks' full code lists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what each item contains, followed by the filter instruction. No filler.

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 usefully discloses the returned fields and the catalog scope, which is what an agent needs. It stops short of saying how many codes exist or whether results are exhaustive per network, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and the schema description already enumerates the four allowed networks, so the description's mention of the same four values adds little beyond what is structured. The filtering semantics ('see only its codes') is the only marginal addition.

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 (lists) and resource (chargeback reason codes) scoped to four named networks, and says what each entry contains (plain-English name plus link). This is distinguishable from the sibling lookup_reason_code, which implies single-code detail.

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?

'Pass a network to see only its codes' gives the filtering behavior, so the optional-parameter usage is implied. However, it never says when to use this versus lookup_reason_code or get_help_with_a_dispute, so routing still requires inference.

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