List reference values

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds domain context (countries carry public holidays, regions carry event venues; single-record retrieval for countries/regions) but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or the redaction behavior that include_contact_details controls.

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 what the tool returns, and the trailing clause about id-based single-record fetches is placed where it matters. The parenthetical list of list-names is somewhat long but serves as concrete scope evidence rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return shape, and it only gestures at it ('an id fetches one record') without saying whether lists return id/name pairs or full objects. Combined with a 23-value enum and six parameters, the definition is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about response format.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, and the description largely restates the schema's own id semantics ('an id fetches one record'). It does usefully name several of the list values and clarifies that payment_providers is distinct from payment_methods, but it does not explain query, max_results, or locale_code behavior beyond 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?

States a specific resource (AppyWay reference data / lookup lists) and explains what the values are for: the numeric ids consumed by other tools. An agent can tell it is a taxonomy lookup rather than a rule/geometry tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_authorities, which is also a list-style tool.

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 phrase 'the numeric ids used by the other tools' implicitly tells the agent to call this to resolve ids before using other endpoints, which is real usage context. There are no explicit when-to-use conditions, no exclusions, and no routing advice relative to list_authorities or get_parking_entity.

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