list_authorities

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated, or what format they take. It only references schema and context URLs, which is data-model information, not behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by schema/context links. The second sentence is purely URL references but may be useful for data interpretation; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter schema to explain returns, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the shape of the returned authority records, pagination, or any operational constraints, leaving the agent with minimal information for correct invocation.

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 schema is fully described (100% coverage). The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter semantics because none exist.

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 states a clear verb 'List' and a specific resource 'Obligation-First authority records generated from included public matters.' It does not, however, differentiate this tool from siblings like get_authority or list_records, leaving ambiguity about singular vs plural retrieval. Still, the core action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_authority or search_records. The description only states what it lists, not the conditions or contexts that favor this tool over siblings.

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