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. It uses the non-mutating verb 'Report' and explicitly scopes the data source to 'currently configured locally,' indicating a local read rather than a remote lookup. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not discuss return formatting or permissions.

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, directly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target and every word earns its place.

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 read-only version query, the description adequately covers the target ('CEF EN 16931'), the source ('locally configured'), and the currentness ('currently'). An output schema is present, so return-value details are not required in the description.

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 and an empty input schema with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics the description needs to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 ('Report') and a specific resource ('CEF EN 16931 code-list release version(s)'), and scopes it to currently configured local state. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_peppol_codelist_version and the many list/check 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 phrase 'currently configured locally' implies when this tool is useful, but the description does not explicitly explain when to prefer it over get_peppol_codelist_version or provide when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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