get_cpdat_vocabulary

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that this returns controlled vocabulary values, which is implied by the name but not by annotations. It doesn't describe return format, pagination, or caching behavior; with output schema present, return format is less critical.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It doesn't explain the relationship to other exposure tools or what the vocabulary values represent, which would help an agent decide when to use it.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the enum values (fc, puc, lpk) are documented in the schema. The description maps human-readable names to these domains, which is helpful, but this information is largely redundant with what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Return CPDat controlled vocabulary values'. It then lists the concrete domains (functional use, product use categories, list presence tags), which map to the enum values. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like search_cpdat or list_exposure_product_puc, leaving some ambiguity about when to call this tool versus those.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes search_cpdat and several list_exposure_* tools that overlap in purpose, yet the description offers no routing cues or prerequisites.

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