get_applicable_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output returns, error handling, or any rate limits. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and scope. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful.

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%, with the parameter 'location' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying acceptable input types ('city, province, or territory'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('which building codes apply'), and specifies the scope ('Canadian location'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_codes' or 'search_code', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'Canadian location' and acceptable input types ('city, province, or territory'), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_codes' or 'search_code'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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