list_auxiliary_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses the read-only nature implicitly via 'List' and adds a critical behavioral warning about never fabricating data if the tool fails, which is essential for an AI agent. This goes beyond merely stating the purpose.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that clearly state purpose and provide a critical usage warning. Every word earns its place, and the warning is front-loaded right after the purpose.

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 simple schema (1 param, enum) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior. The only minor gap is that it doesn't hint at the output format (e.g., list of objects), but with no output schema, the agent can infer from the resource types. The behavioral warning compensates for missing annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'resource' parameter with an enum. The description adds no further semantics about the parameter beyond repeating the enum values in the list, but the enum itself is self-explanatory.

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 uses a clear verb ('List') and enumerates the specific resources it covers (localities, branches, users, etc.), making the scope very clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the sole tool for auxiliary/reference data, while siblings focus on clients, invoices, connections, etc.

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 this is the tool to use for non-client, non-financial, non-connection auxiliary data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The warning about not fabricating data provides a fallback behavior but no usage alternative.

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