List Vat Category 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. 'List ... from' clearly signals a read-only enumeration operation and identifies the exact source code list. The zero-parameter scope and presence of an output schema reduce the risk of unspecified behavior, though it does not explicitly discuss output ordering or response size.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool returns.

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 enough to select and invoke correctly. The source code list is specified, and the output schema can carry the return structure, so no additional context is needed.

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 input schema has zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters for the description to explain. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly identifies the domain and source of the returned codes without needing to document inputs.

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 (UNCL5305 VAT category codes), and the source (CEF EN 16931 code list). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling check_vat_category_code, which checks a single code rather than enumerating them.

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 the tool is for enumerating VAT category codes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over check_vat_category_code or list_vatex_codes. Usage context is inferable from the name and wording, but no direct guidance or exclusions are given.

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