list_programmes

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds genuine domain context the annotations cannot: it instructs the agent to preserve evidence dates, conditions, coverage gaps and warnings, and warns that missing context never establishes eligibility or a travel waiver. That is a meaningful epistemic constraint for a legal/immigration dataset, though it omits pagination behaviour and what a partial/empty result means.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, with no filler or repetition. The caveat sentences are dense but each carries a distinct rule; slightly more explicit framing of the second sentence would help.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but with seven undocumented filter/pagination parameters at 0% schema coverage the definition leaves the agent unable to call the tool correctly beyond passing no arguments. The domain warnings are valuable but do not fill the structural gap.

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?

Seven parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description names none of them – no explanation of kind, stage, release, jurisdiction, limit, cursor, or include. The words "evidence" and "coverage gaps" faintly echo the include=evidence const and get_coverage sibling, but this is far from compensating for a total absence of filter and pagination semantics.

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 and resource ("Read-only list programmes"), which distinguishes it from get_programme and compare_programmes by implying bulk enumeration rather than single-record retrieval. However, it never explicitly says 'returns multiple programmes' or contrasts with those siblings, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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 no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative among the seven siblings (get_programme, compare_programmes, get_coverage). Sentences two and three are output-interpretation rules, not usage routing, so an agent has no stated criteria for choosing this tool over its neighbours.

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