wb_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only labels the tool as 'reference books' and gives no information about read-only behavior, response format, authentication, or edge cases. It does not contradict annotations because none exist.

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 compact line with no filler or redundancy; every word carries information. It is efficient, though it leans toward under-specification rather than polished conciseness.

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?

For a simple one-required-parameter tool this is arguably low-complexity, but the description leaves important gaps: it is unclear when search or subject_id should be used for tnved, and no return shape is described. An agent would need to infer call patterns from the schema or experiment.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the directory value list already present in the schema and adds the 'reference books' framing, but it does not explain the semantics of search or subject_id beyond the schema's terse 'for tnved'.

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 identifies the tool as a WB reference-book accessor and enumerates the six supported domains: colors, kinds, countries, seasons, vat, tnved. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the resource and scope are understandable and distinct from the sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to provide search versus subject_id. The only usage hints come from the schema's parameter descriptions, not from the description itself.

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