listProcedures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists 'all' procedures, implying no filtering or pagination. However, it does not mention return format, ordering, or any read-only guarantees. For a simple list operation, this is acceptable but not rich in behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It clearly states scope ('all available'). A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly note that the result can be used with sibling tools for details, but this is a slight enhancement rather than a necessity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully documents that there is nothing to configure. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4 per guidelines. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are needed.

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 the action: 'List all available procedures' in the 'eRegulations system.' The use of 'all' distinguishes this from sibling tools that target specific procedures (getProcedureDetails, getProcedureStep). The verb 'list' is precise and unambiguous.

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 its use case: when you need an overview of all procedures. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or exclude cases (e.g., 'for details on a single procedure, use getProcedureDetails'). The guidance is not misleading, but it is implicit rather than explicit.

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