list_jurisdictions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Returns the list,' which implies a read-only query. For a simple list retrieval, this is sufficient disclosure of behavior. No mention of rate limits or pagination is necessary given the small size (24 jurisdictions).

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value: it names the resource, describes its contents, provides a count, and lists the fields. No unnecessary information.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the returned items (jurisdictions), their categories, and the fields each item contains. It is complete for the agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the instructions, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds context about what the list contains, but that is not parameter semantics.

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 returns a list of all tracked jurisdictions, specifying the types (countries, supranational unions, US states) and the data each carries (ISO code, type, regulation IDs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_regulations or get_jurisdiction by focusing on the full jurisdiction list.

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 this tool is for retrieving the full list of jurisdictions, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus get_jurisdiction (which likely retrieves a specific jurisdiction). However, the context of sibling tools makes the distinction clear enough, so it receives a 4.

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