browse_oag_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Browse the OAG code hierarchy' without stating that the tool is read-only, if it requires authentication, how it handles missing codes, or any rate limits. Users cannot assess side effects or constraints.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. It conveys the essence without extra words. However, it could be slightly expanded with a hint about the hierarchy structure without becoming verbose, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 lack of an output schema and the hierarchical nature of the tool, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a list of codes with names), whether the hierarchy is multi-level, or how to traverse deeper. Users must infer behavior from the name and parameters.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining that omitting parentCode shows root categories, which is not stated in the schema alone. The lang parameter is simply 'Display language', which is clear. The added hint for parentCode earns a score above baseline.

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 verb 'Browse' and the resource 'OAG code hierarchy', which distinguishes it from sibling browse tools for other code systems (BKP, CPV, NPK). It specifies the domain (object type classification), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are multiple browse tools, but the description does not explain when to choose this one or mention any prerequisites or limitations. Users are left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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