Competency Vocabulary

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: graded claims 'take a min_level', while binary or credential claims refuse min_level, and only definitions are returned, not member evidence. It also states no authentication is required, which the annotations do not cover. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, claim-type behavior, intended use, content boundary, and access level. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and there is 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only vocabulary tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to decide and invoke correctly: what is returned, how results are grouped, refusal semantics, intended usage, and authentication requirements. Nothing essential 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter burden; the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description adds useful context about how outputs are grouped and denominated, which is more than the empty schema could convey.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List the published competency vocabulary' and adds scope ('every code the field can be asked about') and grouping behavior ('grouped by how the claim is denominated'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_traits.

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 explicitly instructs when to call this tool: 'Use this before composing query_field competency_requirements.' It also clarifies content scope ('Definitions only, no member evidence') and access level ('Free L0, no authentication required'). It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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