get_classifiers

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

With no annotations, the description discloses read-only nature, filter behavior (case-insensitive substring), and contents. However, it omits details on output format, error handling, or dependency on eph_setup (e.g., what happens if not called).

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?

Five concise sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, prerequisite, use case, contents, filter behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return contents and filter behavior. It includes a prerequisite but lacks details on error conditions or the scope of the filter substring match.

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 single parameter 'filter' is well-explained: 'Pass filter to get only matching lines (case-insensitive substring match).' This adds semantic value beyond the schema's empty title, though default value is not mentioned.

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 'Returns the complete CNO 2001 classification' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_variable by focusing on occupation classification retrieval.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite ('Call eph_setup() first') and use cases ('correctly interpret or recode occupation variables'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but gives clear context compared to siblings.

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