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 of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' clearly signals a read-only retrieval operation, and the data source is precisely identified. The description does not mention potential side effects because for this zero-parameter listing tool there are none apparent.

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 states the action, the data set, and the source standard with no wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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?

This is a zero-parameter listing tool with no annotations but also no behavioral complexity. The output schema is present, so return values do not need to be described. The source standard and code list are explicitly named, making the description complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool.

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 confirms this with an empty properties object, so according to the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add.

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 ('UNCL1153 reference qualifier codes'), and names the source standard ('CEF EN 16931 code list'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_reference_qualifier_code and other list_* codelist 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 'List' verb implies this tool is for enumerating all reference qualifier codes, and the sibling check_reference_qualifier_code implies the alternative for validation. However, this is only implied; the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over checking a single code.

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