list_provinces

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the return content, not whether the operation is read-only, cached, or has any side effects. For a simple lookup this is a minor gap, but it does not disclose any extra behavioral traits beyond the bare return statement.

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?

A single, compact sentence that conveys the complete purpose without any fluff. All information is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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 static mapping retrieval with no parameters and no output schema, the description is entirely sufficient. An agent knows exactly what to expect and there are no hidden complexities that need explaining.

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, so according to the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings, and the description does not attempt to invent any.

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 action ('Return'), the resource ('mapping of 2-digit province codes to voivodeship names'), and the context ('used by NFZ'). It is instantly distinguishable from the sibling search tools, which are queries for benefits and queues, not static mappings.

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 that this tool is for retrieving a fixed reference mapping, which contrasts with the search functionality of the siblings. However, it does not explicitly state 'use when you need province codes' or explicitly name alternatives, though the context makes it obvious.

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