aadc.list_standards

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns 15 standards with one-line summaries, implying it is a read-only operation. It does not mention format or performance, but for a simple list tool, it is sufficiently transparent.

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 concise sentences with zero wasted words. The main action ('Return the 15 AADC standards') is front-loaded, and usage guidance is provided succinctly.

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 listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary information: what is returned (15 standards with one-line summaries) and when to use it (filling conformance statements). No gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed, meeting the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states it returns 'the 15 AADC standards with their one-line statutory summaries', using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('AADC standards'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like aadc.read_standard, which likely returns a single standard, and audit tools that perform different actions.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'as a reference when filling in a conformance statement', providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context implicitly covers that.

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