ons_codes_options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds 'List codes/options', which aligns with the annotations and clarifies the operation but does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra value, but there is no contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and target. It contains no unnecessary words, making it efficient. However, it is arguably too terse to be fully useful, but conciseness itself is well-executed.

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 has 5 parameters (4 required) with no enum constraints and no schema descriptions, the one-line description is insufficient for an agent to understand the relationships between dataset, edition, version, and dimension, or what 'live dimension' means. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the request construction remains ambiguous. The description does not provide examples or additional context needed for correct invocation.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter explanations. The description only hints at 'dimension' as the key parameter, but dataset, edition, and version are left completely unexplained. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent uncertain about how to construct valid requests.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'codes/options for a given ONS live dimension', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ons_codes_list (likely for a different scope) and ons_data_dimensions (which lists dimensions, not codes within a dimension). However, it doesn't explicitly name any alternative or contrast with them, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ons_codes_list or ons_data_dimensions. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer its appropriate context. No exclusions or explicit comparisons are provided.

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