List Standards Coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that coverage is partial by design and that unimplemented values are refused with a stated reason rather than approximated, which is exactly the kind of refusal semantics an agent must know before promising results. It doesn't describe the shape of the listing itself, but an output schema covers that.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what it lists and the ordering advice, then the partial-coverage caveat, then the sibling hand-off. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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 listing tool with an output schema, everything the agent needs is present: what it returns conceptually, when to call it, the refusal behavior, and where to go for exact intervals. No gaps that would cause a wrong call.

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 takes zero parameters and the description correctly spends no words on parameter semantics. Baseline for a 0-param tool applies; nothing is missing here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list the standards the server implements) plus the distinctive scope: which parts within each standard are not covered. That partial-coverage angle separates it from siblings like material_coverage and iso286_applicability without needing schema inspection.

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?

Explicitly says to call it first when a question mentions a standard, and gives the reason (know availability before promising an answer). It also routes to a concrete alternative, iso286_applicability, for exact ISO 286 size intervals, so the boundary against the nearest sibling is drawn.

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