List Charge Reason Codes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'List ... from the CEF EN 16931 code list' clearly conveys a read-only retrieval operation from a specific authoritative source. There are no parameters or side effects to disclose, and the description is honest about what the tool does.

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. It states the action, the object, and the source without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 parameterless list tool with an output schema present, this description is complete. It identifies the exact resource and source, and the output schema covers return-value details. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The schema fully covers this, and the description's mention of the CEF EN 16931 code list provides useful context without needing to describe inputs.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('charge reason codes'), and a source ('CEF EN 16931 code list'). This cleanly differentiates it from sibling check functions like check_charge_reason_code and other code-list listings.

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 verb 'List' implies this tool is for retrieving the full set of charge reason codes, and sibling names suggest the complementary check tool, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool over check_charge_reason_code or other alternatives. 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.