list_available_repertories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a read-only listing operation that is non-destructive, and the description's non-mutating language ('Get', 'discovering') is consistent. However, it doesn't describe pagination, ordering, or any limits, though as a listing tool with output schema present, the bar is moderate.

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, zero waste. The description front-loads the primary purpose and metadata fields, then adds the discoverability use-case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-optional-parameter listing tool with a full input schema and an output schema present, the description is complete. It conveys purpose, schema covers the parameter, and the return metadata (title, author, language) is stated.

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% (the single optional 'language' parameter is fully documented). The description reinforces that language is optional and clarifies its default behavior ('If not specified, returns all repertories'), adding meaning beyond the schema's format constraint.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get a complete list of all available homeopathic repertories with their metadata including title, author, and language.' The description explicitly names what metadata is returned and distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_available_materia_medicas and the search 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?

States it is 'useful for discovering which repertories are available for searching,' implying it should be used as a precursor to search_repertory. It doesn't explicitly exclude sibling tools (list_available_materia_medicas), though the 'repertories' vs 'materia_medicas' contrast is implicit.

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