list_classifications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing operation via 'List', and adds context about model types and level filtering, but does not disclose potential pagination, response format, or any other behavioral details. The provided context is minimal but not misleading.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second details supported models, and the third gives filtering guidance. It is front-loaded and free of 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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, supported models, and how to use the optional parameter. The absence of an output schema is not a major gap since the tool probably returns a list of entries. It could mention what happens when no level is specified, but overall it is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description enriches the parameter meanings by explaining what KBLI and KBKI represent (business vs commodity classification, ISIC-based) and explicitly pointing to the 'level' parameter for hierarchy filtering. This adds value beyond the raw enum values in the schema.

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 starts with 'List BPS statistical classification entries by model', which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools by specifying the classification models (KBLI and KBKI) and their versions. The scope is unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to list classification entries for KBLI or KBKI models, and how to filter by level. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., get_classification), but the context is clear enough for selecting this tool.

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