list_councils

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 discloses the basic function (listing councils with IDs) but omits details like data freshness, sorting, pagination, or whether it's read-only. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence that is extremely concise and front-loaded, containing no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and use case. It could be slightly improved by specifying the return format (e.g., list of objects), but overall it is complete enough.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description adds no parameter details, but with 0 parameters the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('list'), the subject ('UK councils (local planning authorities)'), the scope ('PlanWire covers'), and the purpose ('with their IDs for use in searches'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_planning_application' which focus on applications.

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 'for use in searches' implies the IDs are meant for tools like 'search_planning_applications', providing usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative approaches.

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