list_gna_entries

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that the tool downloads and verifies the registry if not cached, and it also outlines the return structure (dict with count and list of entries with specific fields). This adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 three sentences: a clear purpose statement, a note on download/caching, and a return summary. No redundant 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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the side effect (download/verify), and the return format. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The description adds the return structure, which is helpful but not strictly parameter-related. Baseline 4 for zero params.

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 the specific verb 'List' plus the resource 'Global Numbering Authorities (GNA)' and scopes it to the GCVE registry, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_gna_entry and search_gna.

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 implies use when retrieving the full set of GNA entries ('List all'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The sibling tools are not referenced, so usage guidance is clear but not optimally contrastive.

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