List CERIF classification schemes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists schemes and that query filters names and terms, but it does not describe the return format, pagination, default limit, or whether user-defined schemes are excluded. This is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and examples. Every word contributes value; no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 low-complexity tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter behavior. It could be slightly more explicit about what the response includes (e.g., scheme metadata and terms) and when to prefer sibling tools, but it 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'limit' and 'query'. The description adds minor reinforcement ('query filters scheme names and terms') but does not meaningfully extend the schema's semantics, so 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lists the canonical CERIF classification schemes (vocabularies) curated for common use' with specific examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_entities and get_scheme by specifying the resource type (classification schemes) and the curated nature.

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 phrase 'curated for common use' implies this is the default for standard schemes, and the optional query filter suggests search usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to alternatives like get_scheme for specific schemes, so guidance is only implied.

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