explain_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds value by specifying the source of the labels (official code table) and the supported languages (DE/FR/IT), going beyond what annotations provide.

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 very concise at two sentences, but the second sentence could be more structured or broken into bullet points for clarity. No superfluous information, but room for slight improvement.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose. However, it lacks explanation for the optional parameter and does not mention the output schema's structure, resulting in moderate completeness.

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 bears the full burden of explaining parameters. It includes an example of 'attribute' and 'code' but does not describe the optional 'canton' parameter at all, leaving a gap in understanding.

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 decodes GWR code values into human-readable labels, with a specific verb and resource. It provides an example of inputs (GSTAT=1004) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle different tasks.

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 implies use for decoding codes from a specific code table, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use it. Sibling tools have different purposes, so some implicit differentiation exists.

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