list_standards

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

No annotations provided, but the description clearly indicates a read-only list operation. It adds context about the type of standards included, though it does not disclose return format or authentication needs, which is acceptable for a simple tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no unnecessary words.

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 parameterless list tool, the description is complete. It specifies what is listed and gives examples. No output schema is needed for this use case.

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 has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the scope (accounting/auditing) and listing example standards, going beyond the empty schema.

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?

Description clearly states it lists available accounting/auditing standards summaries with specific examples (IFRS, IAS, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_standard' which retrieves a single standard.

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 when to use (browsing available standards) vs. alternatives like 'get_standard' for details, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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