list_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the set of valid kinds; it says nothing about whether results are paginated, how large collections are, or whether the collections are static reference data versus live records. An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the value list; no filler. The enum enumeration is long but every token is load-bearing since the schema does not define it.

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?

With one required parameter, an output schema, and full annotations, the description supplies the one genuinely missing piece (the valid kind values) and needs little else. The residual gap is the absence of any routing guidance against overlapping sibling list/get tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the kind property has no enum and no description, so the description carries the entire burden — and it does, listing all ten accepted values exhaustively. It stops short of explaining what each collection contains or whether values are case-sensitive, which leaves some ambiguity for a required discriminator.

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?

States a clear verb (list) and resource (reference collection) and enumerates the concrete collections available via kind, which is more specific than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from lookalike siblings such as list_taxes, list_payment_types, or list_outlets, which could plausibly overlap with outlet_taxes or the other kinds.

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 enumeration of kinds implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this lookup tool versus the dozens of dedicated siblings (list_taxes, list_outlets, list_payment_types, list_products) that appear to return overlapping data. An agent must infer the selection rule.

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