get_info_disclosure_codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields and the filter behavior (empty value = all), providing basic transparency. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any access requirements, or the response shape beyond the output schema, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and efficient, with each line serving a purpose: it states the resource, the returned fields, and the parameter semantics. No wasted words.

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 lookup tool with an existing output schema, the description covers what it returns and how to filter. It lacks explicit mention of read-only behavior or edge cases, but is largely complete for its simplicity.

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 code_type is explained beyond the schema: it is a filter matching CODETYPE and that an empty value means all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this description adds meaningful semantic value that the schema lacks.

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 this tool retrieves common codes for the information disclosure system, and lists the fields provided (CODETYPE, CODENAME, usage status). While this distinguishes it from other code-lookup siblings by naming a specific system, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or reference other code-lookup tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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