rb209_soil_nvz_action_program

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals only that this is a GET returning a full list; it does not describe authentication, error behavior, response structure, or any side effects. 'GET' is an endpoint convention rather than a behavioral explanation.

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 sentence with the endpoint front-loaded and the purpose stated immediately after the dash. There is no filler or redundant 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?

For a one-parameter GET lookup with no output schema, the description provides the minimally necessary invocation details. However, it omits any context about what NVZ action programs are, why a countryId is needed, or what the list contains, and there is no annotation to fill the gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: countryId is documented as 'The value of country id' with integer type. The description merely echoes the placeholder {countryId} in the path, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the exact HTTP verb (GET), the resource path (/api/Soil/NvzActionProgram/{countryId}), and the returned concept ('full list of NVZ action program'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from the many rb209_soil_* sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or routing conditions are provided. With dozens of lookup siblings, the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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