get_error_codes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no payment is needed and the return type (machine-readable catalog). However, it does not mention potential side effects, caching behavior, or performance implications. For a simple read-only tool, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 sentence that immediately states the purpose, followed by examples and usage guidance. Every word adds value, with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns (a catalog of error codes with examples) and how to use the output (branch on error_code). No additional context is necessary.

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 coverage is 100% (by default, as no parameters exist). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a machine-readable catalog of all error codes the API can return, with specific examples (TIMEOUT, CONTENT_FILTERED, etc.). It distinguishes itself from any sibling by focusing solely on error code retrieval.

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?

It advises agents to branch on error_code rather than parsing free-text messages, which is a clear usage directive. It also notes that no payment is required. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives.

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