list_cantons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a list of cantons and their codes, but does not describe the return format, ordering, or any side effects. For a trivial read-only list operation this is adequate, but it adds little beyond what the name 'list_cantons' already implies, only the 'with their codes' detail.

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, front-loaded with the action ('List all Swiss cantons') and immediately adds the relevant detail ('with their codes') and purpose ('useful for search filters'). There is zero waste; every word 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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential facts: what is listed and why it matters. It could explicitly describe the return structure (e.g., array of objects with name/code), but given the simplicity and the lack of side effects, the current level is nearly complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters, and there is no missing parameter documentation to compensate for.

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 a specific verb-resource ('List all Swiss cantons') and adds the scope 'with their codes', which is immediately actionable. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that handle tenders, institutions, and procurement code systems (CPV/BKP/NPK/OAG), so an agent can unambiguously identify this as the canton reference tool.

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 phrase 'useful for search filters' gives a clear use case: obtaining canton codes for filtering. This provides context but stops short of explicit exclusions or alternative references. Since no sibling tool deals with cantons, the usage intent is sufficiently implied, though not spelled out as a when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use statement.

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