list_document_name_codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly conveys a read-only, non-mutating action, and the absence of parameters limits side-effect surface. However, it does not state whether all codes are returned, whether ordering or caching applies, or any error/availability behavior, so transparency is adequate but thin.

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 no filler: it leads with the action and immediately names the exact resource and source code list. Every word contributes.

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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema already available, this description provides sufficient context. It names the code list source (CEF EN 16931) and the code type (UNCL1001 document name codes), leaving no ambiguity for selection or 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema is already complete and the description's mention of the code list is the relevant semantic context.

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 verb ('List') and a precise resource ('UNCL1001 document name codes from the CEF EN 16931 code list'), so an agent knows what the tool operates on. It is clear and not a tautology, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling check_document_name_code or other list_* 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?

The description implies the tool should be used when an agent wants to enumerate UNCL1001 document name codes, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Guidance is only implicit, not stated.

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