get_agencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states the return content (name, slug, description) and the 'all' behavior, which informs the agent about the tool's output and scope. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or failure modes, but for a simple parameterless read tool, this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then provides return details. Every word adds value with no 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?

For a simple parameterless list tool, the description covers the core behavior and return fields. It does not include a pointer to the sibling 'get_agency' for single-agency needs, but the tool is simple enough that the description is almost complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 the tool's verb ('Get'), resource ('federal agencies'), and scope ('all'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_agency' which presumably fetches a single agency. It also names the return fields (name, slug, description).

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 implies usage for listing all federal agencies but provides no explicit 'when to use' guidance or alternatives such as 'use get_agency for a specific agency.' With multiple sibling tools, a direct reference to the singular counterpart would improve clarity, but the scope is clear enough.

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