describe_applicability

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 explicitly declares this is a non-evaluating read/preparation operation, which prevents an agent from expecting it to compute applicability. It stops short of disclosing return shape details (e.g., structure/size of the vocabulary) but the enumerated content list compensates substantially.

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?

Single dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the enumerated return contents and the downstream routing note. The enumeration is long but each item earns its place by describing returned vocabulary; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns—and it does by listing the vocabulary categories returned. For a 4-param, zero-annotation tool this is nearly complete; only the mutual exclusivity/precedence of dmc vs xml vs path is left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so dmc, xml, path, and csdbDirs are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or precedence guidance beyond the schema (e.g., which source wins when multiple are provided), so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Describe the applicability vocabulary of a data module') and then enumerates the concrete contents returned: ACT attributes, CCT condition types, PCT products, applic statements, and attributes lacking PCT values. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_data_module, which evaluates rather than describes.

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?

Gives an explicit purpose ('so a product can be chosen'), states what it does not do ('Nothing is evaluated here'), and routes to the correct alternative ('pass the chosen values as "product" to read_data_module'). The condition that selects each tool is fully spelled out.

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