list_classifications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds concrete context by asserting the list has exactly 23 items and provides an example, which is helpful but does not go beyond what annotations already establish about behavior.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes a concrete example, and contains no filler or redundant information. It earns its place entirely.

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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is the complete absence of explanation for the 'language' parameter, which is the only way to customize the call. Annotations cover safety and the output schema covers return values, so this is a moderate, not severe, omission.

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% for the only parameter 'language', and the description does not mention it or explain how it affects the output (e.g., the language of classification labels). Since the schema is unhelpful and the description fails to compensate, the agent has no guidance on this parameter.

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 ('List') and resource ('subject classifications') and gives an example mapping ('BILD = education'), making the purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource is unique enough that the tool is easily distinguished from the provided siblings.

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 'for classification_ids' implies that the tool returns classification IDs useful for other operations, giving a hint of when to use it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the usage context.

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