list_resources

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds useful context about 'exporter resources' and the coordinator as the source, but doesn't disclose behavior like ordering, pagination, or live-state semantics. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not richly transparent.

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, concise sentence that contains only meaningful information. There is no redundancy or filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 parameterless list operation with a well-defined output schema and thorough annotations, this description is mostly complete. It would benefit from an explicit statement that it returns a list and how it relates to list_places, but the overall context is adequate for an agent to invoke it in simple scenarios.

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 and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. No parameter explanations are needed, and the baseline of 4 applies for parameterless tools.

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 states the tool returns all exporter resources known to the coordinator, which is clear and specific about the resource type and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_places by specifying 'exporter resources', though it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_places or coordinator_info. The context is implied by the name, but explicit usage instructions and exclusions are absent.

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