Get CERIF classification scheme

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Returns' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is a positive signal. However, the description omits details about error handling for unknown schemes, response format, or any access/permission requirements. For a simple retrieval tool, this is minimally adequate but not rich in transparency.

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 two sentences and extremely efficient. The first sentence delivers the core action and resource, while the second explains practical application. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the essential information. No fluff or repetition.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description gives sufficient context for an agent to know what to expect: it returns a full term list and explains why one would use it. It could be even stronger by outlining the structure of the returned list or handling of invalid scheme names, but the description is solid for this level of complexity.

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 input schema already fully documents the 'scheme' parameter with a clear description and examples. The tool description adds a small amount of context by mentioning what the pairs are used for, but this does not significantly enhance the parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 clearly states the primary function with a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('full term list of a CERIF classification scheme'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_schemes by focusing on retrieving the terms of a single scheme rather than listing schemes or entities. The use case for finding cfClassId/cfClassSchemeId pairs adds further clarity.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use to find the exact cfClassId / cfClassSchemeId pairs used when classifying entities.' This gives practical context that differentiates it from potentially similar tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stays one step short of the top score.

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