List Eas Codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the context that the codes come from the CEF EN 16931 code list and the read-only 'List' verb, but it does not describe output behavior such as whether all codes are returned at once or whether they are ordered. The output schema partially compensates for the return format.

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 that defines the resource and source without filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the exact code list and resource. It could be slightly fuller by pointing to check_eas_code for validation, but that is a usage-guidance refinement rather than a blocking gap.

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 no parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. This matches the baseline for a zero-parameter 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 names a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('Electronic Address Scheme (EAS) codes'), and a data source ('CEF EN 16931 code list'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling check_eas_code, which validates a single code rather than enumerating the code list.

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 purpose of listing EAS codes implies when the tool is appropriate, and the sibling check_eas_code provides a contrasting validation use case. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over check_eas_code or mention any exclusions.

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