List Enumerations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by explaining the semantics of the `source` field (ADIF's own export vs. derived by adif-mcp), which affects how a consumer should interpret results.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core fact (26 enumerations, 25 + 1 derived) front-loaded before the interpretive note about `source`.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out here, and the description still clarifies the one field whose meaning is non-obvious (`source`). For a trivial no-arg list tool this is essentially complete; only the sibling contrast is missing.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Lists the 26 enumerations') and even quantifies the payload, noting 25 ADIF 3.1.7 enumerations plus a derived Country one. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling `search_enumerations`, so an agent must infer that this is the exhaustive listing versus a filtered lookup.

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 phrase 'so a consumer loading reference tables can tell them apart' implies the load-everything use case, which softly distinguishes it from `search_enumerations`. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or pointer to the alternative.

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