list_certifying_bodies

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

No annotations are provided, and the description confirms the tool is read-only and lists 217 bodies with exam counts and optional filtering. However, it does not specify output format or pagination, which are minor gaps.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence covers the core purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance and filter details.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and filter option, but lacks explicit mention of return fields (e.g., body name and count). Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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 parameter 'contains' is described in the schema with a substring filter example. The description reiterates this and adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool lists certifying bodies with exam counts, provides example queries, and mentions optional filtering, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with exams themselves.

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 gives explicit use-case examples ('what certification providers/vendors are covered', 'how many AWS/Microsoft/Cisco certs') and mentions the optional substring filter, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool.

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