List harmonised concepts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: the resources are harmonised concepts and code lists with a specific semantic role, and they are not reachable via search_catalog. This goes beyond the annotations and schema without contradicting them.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then domain context, then a key caveat, then compact parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, and the Args section is scannable without redundant 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?

With an output schema presentcherta, no required parameters, comprehensive annotations, and all parameters described, nothing essential is missing. The domain context and search_catalog exclusion complete the picture for an agent deciding whether to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every parameter is described. publisher_identifier is enriched with its source (list_publishers), language is clarified as affecting titles and descriptions, and page/page_size semantics are stated. This is sufficient, though terse.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List harmonised concepts and code lists of the Swiss administration.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming search_catalog as not the way to reach these resources, and the plural 'list' contrasts with singular get_concept.

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 says these concepts are not reachable through search_catalog, giving a when-not to use an alternative. It also instructs that publisher_identifier comes from list_publishers, chaining to the prerequisite tool. It does not explicitly contrast with get_concept or search_codelist_entries, but enough context is provided.

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