list_vatex_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' implies a read-only retrieval and the source is specified, but it does not explicitly state that all codes are returned, any ordering behavior, or that there are no side effects. There is no contradiction, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 one sentence and about 14 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the acronym expansion without fluff. Every word 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?

For a simple zero-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource and the relevant standard. A note that it returns the full code set or a pointer to check_vatex_code for single-code validation would make it fully complete, but those are minor gaps.

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, so there are no parameters whose semantics need explanation, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. This meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool with nothing missing.

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'), a specific resource ('VATEX codes'), expands the acronym ('VAT exemption reason'), and names the source code list ('CEF EN 16931 code list'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_vat_category_codes and check_vatex_code.

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 intended use case is clear: when the full set of VAT exemption reason codes is needed. It does not explicitly mention when to use check_vatex_code instead or state any exclusions, but for a zero-parameter list tool the context is straightforward.

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