get_codelist_terms

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses the exact response shape (refs map of term name -> href, with the C code as the href's last segment), explicitly documents a negative behavior (submissionValue is never returned, even with raw=true, by API design), and quantifies a real risk (responses up to ~260k characters for large codelists). This is exactly the kind of operational context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 key constraint (no per-term submissionValue, use the sibling instead) is front-loaded and the example anchors it at the end. It is dense with useful caveats, though the emphasis markers and the large-table warning could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema and three parameters, the description does the heavy lifting well: return shape, omitted fields, and size limits are all covered. The one shortfall is that after flagging 260k-character responses it names no concrete pagination approach, leaving the agent without a next step for the worst case.

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 already 100%, so the schema carries the baseline. The description still adds value by clarifying that raw=true does not unlock submissionValue and by giving a concrete package/codelist example pair, which helps an agent form valid arguments.

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 ('获取指定编码列表中的所有术语'), defines what a term is ('可选的标准化值'), and distinguishes itself from get_codelist_submission_values. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to get_codelist_submission_values when the three-column view (name + C code + submission value) is needed, and warns that large codelists such as LBTESTCD should use a paginated tool instead. The paginated alternative is referenced only vaguely as '新工具分页' without being named, which is a minor gap given the sibling list.

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