List Payment Means 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 indicates the tool is a read-only listing operation and names the source code list, but does not disclose pagination, error behavior, or return size. Since there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the missing behavior details are relatively minor.

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 or repetition. Every word adds meaningful information: the operation, the code standard, and the source 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, parameterless enumeration tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could strengthen routing by explicitly naming the sibling check tool, but the core information needed to select and invoke the tool is present.

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 and the schema fully documents this (100% coverage), so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description adds useful source context ('CEF EN 16931 code list') that helps the agent understand the domain, even though parameter-level semantics are not applicable.

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 ('UNCL4461 payment means codes from the CEF EN 16931 code list'), which clearly states what the tool returns. It also naturally contrasts with the sibling 'check_payment_means_code', making the distinction between listing all codes and checking a single code evident.

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 usage: call this when you need the full list of UNCL4461 payment means codes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as indicating that 'check_payment_means_code' should be used to verify a specific code.

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