list_iso_19650_clauses

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is destructive, read-only, requires authentication (beyond optional api_key), rate limits, or any side effects. The return format is described but not behavioral traits.

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 description is short but uses a docstring format with Args and Returns, which is functional. However, the purpose is not front-loaded; the first line 'ISO 19650-1/-2 clause reference' is vague. The tool would benefit from a more direct opening sentence.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, output schema present), the description is moderately complete. It mentions return structure and parameter examples, but lacks usage context and behavioral details that would fully inform agent decision-making.

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?

The description adds some meaning to parameters by providing examples for query ('e.g., VRM, card number, project ID') and specifying api_key as 'MEOK API key'. However, it does not explain the parameters' format or constraints beyond the schema default values.

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 states it is an 'ISO 19650-1/-2 clause reference' and the tool name includes 'list', so the action is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate its purpose from siblings like check_bim_maturity or validate_bep, though the verb 'list' implies retrieval vs. checking or validating.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. The description merely states it returns a clause reference, leaving the agent to infer usage. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' hints are provided.

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