list_charge_reason_codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' clearly signals a read-only enumeration with no mutation, and the standard code-list source is identified. It does not disclose details like caching or whether deprecated codes are included, but for a zero-param list operation this is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: List, charge reason codes, and the CEF EN 16931 code list.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool with an output schema present, this description is complete. The agent knows what data is returned and the source; no parameter or return-value explanation is necessary.

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 schema already provides complete coverage. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable; the baseline for zero parameters 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('charge reason codes') and identifies the source ('CEF EN 16931 code list'). This distinguishes it from siblings such as check_charge_reason_code and list_allowance_reason_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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'List' and the sibling naming patterns: list versus check. However, the description does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this tool over check_charge_reason_code or other list tools.

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