list_legal_forms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's additional context about listing legal forms and language support adds marginal value. It does not contradict annotations and provides enough behavior context for an agent, but does not go beyond what annotations already imply.

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 concise, with a clear main statement, a brief usage note, and an argument spec. Every sentence adds value, and it is well-structured with the purpose front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics completely. It leaves no significant gaps and is fully sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 single parameter 'language' is described with allowed values (de, fr, it, en), adding meaning beyond the schema which only specifies type and default. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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 clearly states the tool lists all Swiss legal forms recognized by Zefix, using the specific verb 'list' and naming the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on company searches and details.

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?

It provides clear context by explaining the tool is useful for understanding legal form IDs in search results or filtering searches by legal form. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and actionable.

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