ons_codes_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the qualifier 'live' to 'dataset version,' which is useful context, but it does not describe what happens if the version is not live, what the output contains, or any other behavioral nuance. The description adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action verb. It contains no unnecessary words or filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description omits key context: the meaning of 'live,' the relationship between the parameters, and when to use this tool over similar siblings. For a tool with three required parameters and a crowded sibling space, the description leaves too much to inference.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not. It only hints at 'live dataset version' but does not define 'dataset,' 'edition,' or 'version.' With three required parameters and no parameter-level documentation, the description fails to help an agent understand what values to provide.

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 states a specific action ('List'), resource ('ONS dimensions'), and context ('for a live dataset version'). It clearly conveys what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ons_data_dimensions or ons_codes_options, which may also deal with dimensions. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over siblings like ons_data_dimensions or ons_codes_options. There is no implied usage context beyond the literal action.

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