List valid codes of a dimension

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations by clarifying that the tool does not return statistical values, does not indicate which codes have data, and does not apply to the time dimension. It also notes codelists are shared across dataflows, which is not evident from annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise yet information-dense, front-loaded with purpose and examples. Each sentence adds value: usage, sharing, limitations, and time dimension exclusion. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity, excellent schema annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage, limitations, and alternative paths. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% so parameters are documented in the schema, but the description enhances meaning by explaining the 'search' parameter usage (to resolve a name to a code), and clarifying pagination via offset/limit. It also ties 'dimension' to ilo_get_indicator_metadata. This adds value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states that the tool lists valid codes (id + label) for a dimension of an ILOSTAT dataflow, with concrete examples (REF_AREA, SEX, AGE). It specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'codes of a dimension', and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not return statistical values and is not for data retrieval.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use the tool (to build correct ilo_get_data filters), when not to use it (for data availability, time dimension), and alternatives (use 'search' parameter to resolve names, filter time via ilo_get_data start_period/end_period). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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