bfs_list_tables_by_theme

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining the error response structure: on error, error and hint are set and tables is None. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, followed by usage guidance and return/error details. Front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value.

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 simplicity and the presence of detailed schema descriptions and output schema (indicated by context), the description covers the essential aspects: input parameters, return values, and error behavior. It could mention pagination implications of the limit parameter, but the limit is self-explanatory.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for each parameter (theme_code, lang, limit), including examples and validation patterns. The description's Args block merely restates the parameter names and types without adding new information. Thus, it adds minimal value 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 clearly states the tool lists available statistical tables for a specific BFS theme. It distinguishes from siblings like bfs_get_table_metadata and bfs_get_data by indicating the returned table_ids are used with those tools. It also implicitly differentiates from bfs_search_tables which searches across themes.

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 explains that the tool requires a theme_code and returns table IDs and titles, which can then be used with bfs_get_table_metadata and bfs_get_data. It provides the format for theme_code (2-digit) and mentions the default limit. However, it does not explicitly compare with bfs_list_themes or bfs_search_tables for when to use alternatives.

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