list_reference_qualifier_codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool lists codes from a named code list, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose side-effect-free behavior, sorting, filtering, pagination, or any other operational traits. This is adequate but minimal.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 list operation with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the standard, the source code list, and the action. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly indicating that this returns all codes or by referencing the related check tool, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema with additionalProperties false already fully specifies that no arguments are accepted.

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 and resource: "List UNCL1153 reference qualifier codes from the CEF EN 16931 code list." It clearly identifies both the standard (UNCL1153) and the source list (CEF EN 16931), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as list_icd_codes or list_currency_codes.

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 tool when you need the full set of UNCL1153 reference qualifier codes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling check_reference_qualifier_code or state when one should be preferred over the other, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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