Get En16931 Codelist Version

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Report' signals a read-only informational action and 'configured locally' suggests no network or remote lookup, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, never modifies state, or what kind of value(s) will be returned, though the output schema partially covers return shape.

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, compact sentence with no redundant or vague wording. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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, locally scoped read-only reporting tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It names the exact codelist, the version scope, and the local context. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be restated 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 the schema documents that with an empty properties object and additionalProperties false, giving 100% schema coverage. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics.

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') with a precise resource ('CEF EN 16931 code-list release version(s)') and a scope qualifier ('currently configured locally'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling get_peppol_codelist_version by naming the EN 16931 codelist rather than a generic or PEPPOL codelist.

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 the tool is for checking local configuration, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over get_peppol_codelist_version or any other sibling. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated, so usage is only implied rather than clearly directed.

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