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 burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only enumeration operation, and naming the source code list adds useful context. There are no side effects, destructive actions, or auth requirements implied or hidden.

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. Every word adds value by identifying the code list, the specific code type, and the authoritative source.

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, the description is complete. An agent knows exactly what the tool returns and the source of the data. No additional context is needed to invoke it successfully.

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 parameter semantics are not a concern. No parameter-level information is needed, and the description sufficiently identifies what will be listed without requiring schema documentation.

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 specific resource ('UNCL4461 payment means codes'), and the source code list ('CEF EN 16931'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling check_payment_means_code and from other list_*_codes tools.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool enumerates payment means codes while the sibling check_payment_means_code is presumably for validating or looking up a single code. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the check alternative or over other code-list tools.

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