get_reference_data

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' and 'reference data' imply a non-mutating lookup, and this is simple zero-argument tool. However, the description does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe the response structure, which leaves minor ambiguity.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then uses a colon to enumerate contents efficiently. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 reference lookup, the description provides enough to call the tool with confidence: it identifies the purpose and data categories. Since no output schema exists, the description does not fully clarify the exact response format, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters long-and the input schema already documents this with 100% coveragearenas. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description adds value by explaining what data is returned, even though there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('reference data'), then enumerates what that includes: enums, countries, industries, themes, and other controlled vocabularies. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling entity-focused tools like get_person or search_funds, which retrieve data records rather than vocabulary.

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 phrase 'used by filter fields' implies when the tool should be used: when an agent needs valid values for filters or controlled vocabulary fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the reference-data scope makes the intended context clear.

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