List Criteria Sets

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the composition of each entry (id, land use, soil matrix, provenance), which is useful framing, but says nothing about ordering, filtering, or size limits of the list.

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 tight sentences: the first defines the resource and its payload, the second delivers the actionable chaining instruction. No filler, and the most important downstream hint is front and center.

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?

A no-parameter, read-only enumerator with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation needs little more than what is given. The description covers what the list is, what each entry holds, and how to reuse the id, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'criteria_set in the other tools' usefully ties the emitted id to downstream parameters, but adds no parameter syntax to interpret here.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('assessment criteria sets available for screening') and enumerates the returned fields (id, land use, soil matrix, source document/page/table). The resource is clearly distinct from every sibling (search_guidance, screen_lab_results, draft_section), so an agent can identify it without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to use the output: 'Use an id from this list as criteria_set in the other tools,' establishing this as a prerequisite discovery step for the pipeline. It does not spell out when-not-to-call, but for a param-free enumerator there is no real alternative to exclude.

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