list_subjects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, which is a positive signal, and the description adds context about what subjects are. However, it does not mention pagination, potential errors, or access limitations, which would be useful for a full behavioral picture.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying definition. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

As a simple list tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and examples. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially given strong schema coverage. Minor gaps like return format and edge cases are not critical here.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for domain and subcat params. The description reinforces the domain concept with examples but does not add any new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline score.

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 lists BPS statistical data subjects for a given domain, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_csa_subjects and list_simdasi_subjects by specifying 'BPS' and provides concrete examples of content.

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 conveys a clear context by specifying subjects are for a given domain, implying usage when domain-specific subject lists are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'BPS' qualifier differentiates it from similar sibling tools. The schema's note to use resolve_domain adds indirect guidance.

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