list_collections

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish safety; the description adds a useful scale cue (~140 collections). It does not address behavior such as language filtering, ordering, or pagination, but with annotations present this is acceptable.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then gives the purpose. No wasted words.

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 operation with an output schema and safe annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gaps are the undocumented language parameter and lack of explicit differentiation from list_classifications.

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%, and the description does not explain the only parameter, language, at all. The schema's title and default provide minimal meaning, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the parameter's effect unclear.

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 names a specific action ('List') and resource ('TERMDAT collections') and states the downstream purpose ('use as collection_ids filters'). It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from the similarly named sibling list_classifications, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'For use as collection_ids filters' gives a clear reason to invoke the tool, so an agent knows when the result is needed. However, it never says when not to use it or how it compares with alternatives such as list_classifications.

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