list_councils

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does mention the returned fields and the limit parameter's maximum behavior, but it does not explicitly state read-only status, pagination, sorting, or access requirements. The 'List' verb implies read-only, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, the purpose front-loaded. There is no wasted wording, and the 'Args' section is minimal and directly relevant.

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 one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter. It lacks usage guidance and explicit read-only confirmation, but the low complexity makes it minimally adequate. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds the semantic 'Max councils to return' to the limit parameter, which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's 'Limit' title. However, it adds no format details or edge-case behavior, so it only partially compensates for the schema lack.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('councils'), and also states the returned fields (state, DA count, last activity date). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on DAs or categories.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_das or list_categories. It neither states explicit use cases nor exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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