list_reference_qualifier_codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes a read-only listing operation, but does not mention whether the list is complete, sorted, or limited, nor what each returned item contains beyond what the output schema already covers.

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?

A single informative sentence with no filler. The verb and subject appear first, and the source qualifier is presented immediately, making the purpose readable at a glance.

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 listing tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficient. It names the exact code list source and action, and the output schema handles return value details, leaving no meaningful gap for an agent to invoke it incorrectly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully defines the input surface. The description reinforces that no input is needed by framing this as a simple enumeration, adding no necessary parameter context.

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') and resource ('UNCL1153 reference qualifier codes') and identifies the exact source (CEF EN 16931 code list). This clearly distinguishes the listing behavior from the sibling check_reference_qualifier_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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the nearby check_reference_qualifier_code or other list tools. It is implied by the name and sibling pattern, but there is no explicit context for selection.

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