list_languages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention pagination behavior, output format, or any potentially surprising side effects. The presence of page/items parameters is not acknowledged, leaving the agent without information about how results are returned or limited.

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, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and front-loads the essential information, making it highly efficient.

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 read-only listing tool, the description is functionally adequate, but it lacks detail about the response structure and pagination behavior that the params suggest. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent relies solely on the description, which is minimal but not misleading. It could be improved by noting that results are paginated via page/items or by providing a sample response.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (page and items), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics adequately.

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 function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available languages'), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that list other entities (e.g., flats, vehicles). It conveys exactly what the tool does without vagueness or tautology.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied that one would use it to fetch languages, there are no explicit context cues or exclusions, and the many sibling list tools are not differentiated beyond their names.

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