list_press_releases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists BRS releases and that BRS contains official data releases, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, default ordering, or result limits. It is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose with the tool name, and the second adds useful context about BRS. There is no extraneous information, and the structure is front-loaded with the action.

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's simplicity (5 optional, well-documented parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context. It explains what a BRS is and that the tool lists them. However, it could have referenced the 'get_press_release' sibling for retrieving a specific release. Overall, it is complete enough for a straightforward list operation.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all 5 parameters (page, year, month, domain, keyword), covering 100% of the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: 'List BPS Press Releases' with the specific resource (Berita Resmi Statistik). It also distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_press_release' by using 'list' as the verb, indicating a collection operation. The added context that BRS contains latest official data releases further clarifies its purpose.

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 browsing press releases but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'list_publications' or 'get_press_release'. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided. The purpose is clear enough to infer usage, but explicit guidance is missing.

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