us_list_code_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the date-filtering behavior but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination or the handling of large result sets. It is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.

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 of 10 words, highly concise with no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose, and it front-loads the core action and resource.

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 list tool with 3 parameters, a clear output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and filter. It does not elaborate on the meaning of 'enacted-law packages' or the exact behavior of the date filter, but the schema and annotations fill gaps. Overall complete and appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their types. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting but not exceeding the baseline.

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 specifies the verb ('List'), the resource ('enacted-law packages in a GovInfo collection'), and the filter ('modified since a given date'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like us_get_code_package (single package) and search tools.

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 listing packages modified after a date, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like us_get_code_package or search tools. No exclusion criteria or context about scope is mentioned.

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