list_eas_codes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation and source, but does not specify whether the returned list is exhaustive, whether any limitations exist, or any further behavioral details. There is no contradiction with the structured data.

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 expands the abbreviation and names the exact source while remaining concise.

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 list operation with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool lists and from which source; return-value details are covered by the output schema.

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?

There are zero input parameters and the schema has 100% coverage, so no parameter descriptions are needed. The description does not add parameter information, but the schema already fully documents that no inputs are required.

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') and resource ('Electronic Address Scheme codes') and names the authoritative source ('CEF EN 16931 code list'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling check_eas_code, which is for checking a single 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 word 'List' implies this is for enumerating all EAS codes, and the named sibling check_eas_code suggests the alternative, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus checking a code. Usage guidance is only implicit, not explicit.

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