List Document Name Codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly conveys a read-only listing operation with a defined source, so an agent can infer there are no side effects. It does not mention ordering, size, or pagination, but the operation is simple, parameterless, and backed by an output schema.

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, well-structured sentence with the action verb front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the exact standard and resource. It could optionally mention the check counterpart, but that omission does not seriously impair usability.

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 and complete coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds useful context about the code list source, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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') applied to a clearly identified resource ('UNCL1001 document name codes from the CEF EN 16931 code list'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately recognizable and distinct from sibling check-type tools such as check_document_name_code.

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 use when an agent needs a full enumeration of document name codes, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over check_document_name_code or another alternative. No exclusions or alternative-tool guidance is provided.

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