list_provinces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that strata are derived from K-means clustering of historical burden and enumerates the possible values ('high', 'moderate', 'low'). This adds meaningful context about the data source and semantics. It doesn't mention side effects, but this is a simple list operation with likely no side effects.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences. The first states the primary purpose, the second explains the strata and provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the scope (Angolan provinces under surveillance), the output (epidemiological stratum), the meaning of the stratum values, and the recommended usage order. Nothing crucial 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 input schema has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage vacuously). The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. It does clarify the meaning of the output values, which is more relevant 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List Angolan provinces under surveillance with their epidemiological stratum.' This uses a specific verb (list) and resource (Angolan provinces), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that compare, retrieve history, forecast, or detect outbreaks. The scope is well-defined.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this first to resolve province names before calling other tools.' This gives strong positioning as a prerequisite, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions for other tools. Clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use comparison.

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