be_list_year

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds value by specifying that the tool is used to 'discover NUMAC coordinates,' which clarifies the behavior 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 a single sentence that conveys the purpose and outcome without any waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 (2 parameters, output schema present), the description explains the purpose and the output (NUMAC coordinates) sufficiently. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and sibling tools provide context. No gaps remain for this listing-oriented tool.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (year as integer with example, doc_type as enum). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Browse a year's listing of a Belgian legislation type' and explicitly mentions the outcome 'to discover NUMAC coordinates'. It clearly states what the tool does but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools be_get_act and be_get_text, though the listing vs retrieval distinction is implicit.

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 usage for browsing and discovering NUMAC coordinates, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are listed but not compared.

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