list_eas_codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not add details about ordering, completeness, pagination, or whether the full list is always returned. The output schema partially compensates, but richer behavioral context would help.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 enumeration tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It identifies the source code list and the action. A mention that this returns the full set of EAS codes would make it fully self-contained, but the current text is adequate.

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 the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not need to explain anything beyond what the empty schema already shows.

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 ('List') and identifies a clear resource ('Electronic Address Scheme (EAS) codes from the CEF EN 16931 code list'). It immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools like check_eas_code and other list_* code-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 usage: call this when you need to enumerate EAS codes. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over check_eas_code or mention any alternatives, leaving the decision to inference.

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