data_gouv_fr_list_reference_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the caveat 'when available', implying that the result may be empty or the feature may not exist in some contexts. However, it does not explain what 'reference items' are or whether the operation has any side effects, though a list operation is inherently non-destructive.

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 that directly conveys the action and scope without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless list operation.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, 'reference items' is left undefined, so an agent may not know what to expect in the response or how this tool fits into a workflow. A brief clarification of what qualifies as a 'reference item' would improve completeness.

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 zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not diminish that.

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 action ('List') and a resource ('built-in reference items for this MCP'). It distinguishes from siblings, which focus on datasets, sources, organizations, etc., by clearly referring to the MCP's own internal reference data. The phrase 'when available' introduces mild ambiguity but the core purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does without suggesting use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Siblings like 'data_gouv_fr_get_sources' or 'data_gouv_fr_explain_scope' are not mentioned, so an agent has no basis for choosing between them.

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