get_en16931_codelist_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Report' and 'currently configured locally' imply a safe read operation with no network call, but the description does not disclose output behavior, whether multiple versions can be returned, or failure conditions. It gives minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to describing the tool's purpose and scope.

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 zero-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the resource, the local scope, and the fact that multiple versions may exist. The main gap is not distinguishing from the closely related Peppol sibling in the text itself.

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 there is nothing meaningful for the description to add over the input schema. The schema already defines an empty object, and the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics in this case.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('CEF EN 16931 code-list release version(s)') and scopes it to 'currently configured locally.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling get_peppol_codelist_version, which targets Peppol code-list versions.

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 use when checking locally configured EN 16931 code-list versions, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention get_peppol_codelist_version as the alternative for Peppol. Context is clear enough but exclusions are left to inference.

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