List OECD DAC CRS sector codes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, return format, or side effects. It adds useful context about classifying UNDP outputs, but does not disclose additional behavior beyond the verb.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose ('List the codes') and immediately provides a usage example, making it easy to scan.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and an example. It does not mention the return structure or limits, but these are likely trivial for a code list, so the description is sufficient.

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 query parameter is fully described in the schema (case-insensitive match on sector name or code), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond its purpose; the schema already handles it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'OECD DAC CRS sector codes', and gives an example (15162 'Human rights'). It also specifies its use case for decoding the `crs` field, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like undp_list_operating_units.

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?

It provides a concrete use case ('useful for decoding the `crs` field'), telling an agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the naming convention and sibling context make the purpose clear.

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