list_concepts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, explaining that concepts are shared definitions and not searchable via catalog, and detailing parameter origins. No contradictions with annotations.

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 into a purpose statement, context paragraph, and parameter list. It is concise with no redundant sentences, though the parameter list could be slightly more compact. Still, it earns its place.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not needed to explain return values), the description adequately covers what the tool does, what concepts are, filtering by publisher and language, and pagination. It is sufficient for an agent to use without ambiguity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning: `publisher_identifier` from `list_publishers`, `language` for titles/descriptions, `page` as 1-based, `page_size` range 1-100. This adds critical context beyond the schema's type and constraints.

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 'List harmonised concepts and code lists of the Swiss administration' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `search_catalog` by noting that these are not reachable through that tool, making purpose and differentiation explicit.

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 provides context on when to use this tool (to access shared semantic definitions) and explicitly excludes `search_catalog`. However, it does not compare against other siblings like `list_datasets` or `get_concept`, so usage guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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