list_amendments

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the return nature (dates) but says nothing about read-only behavior, authorization requirements, pagination, or side effects. For a listing tool this is a moderate gap, not a critical one.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The action and result are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaning.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers action, resource, and result. It lacks detail on output format and how language/since affect results, but those are documented in the schema, so the definition is largely sufficient.

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?

Input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, though the phrase 'consolidated version dates' loosely contextualizes rs_number and since.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('consolidation version dates for a Swiss federal act') and clarifies the output ('the dates each consolidated version took effect'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_by_title or get_article.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or conditions are provided. The intended use is only implied by the description's statement of what it returns.

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