List the codes

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing latency ('takes a few seconds' on the first call) and the fact that the call reads every code, which the annotations do not convey.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the description runs long: the two Nouvelle-Calédonie filing examples and the mixed-code/prefix explanation are educational and back-loaded, only tangentially serving tool selection. Useful for interpreting output but not tightly edited.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description instead prepares the agent for data quirks (misleading titles, mixed State/loi-du-pays codes, per-article competence). That is adequate coverage for a no-argument listing tool; only the absence of explicit routing to siblings leaves a small gap.

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 and schema coverage is effectively complete, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (lists) and resource (the 31 consolidated codes) and enumerates the fields returned: slug, filing authority, and published-version date. It hints at its role as the entry point for the other code tools but never names a sibling it should be preferred over, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 'the slug every other code tool expects' and 'the first call reads every code' imply this is the prerequisite entry point before the code-outline/article tools, which is useful. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use condition is stated, so guidance is inferred rather than given.

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