get_codelists

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds that the result covers the entire package (all codelists, not one), which is meaningful scope information, but says nothing about response size, pagination, or how the list relates to get_codelist terms.

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?

One sentence plus a one-line example, with the scope stated first and nothing redundant. It is lean to the point of being slightly bare, but every element present earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and an annotation covering the safety profile, nothing essential is missing; the example supplies the one piece of call-format guidance an agent needs. The absence of an output schema is irrelevant here since the tool returns a list whose shape is implied by the name.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the case-insensitivity note and the pointer to get_ct_packages. The description only repeats an example value for 'package' and never mentions the 'raw' parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('获取...所有编码列表（Codelist）') scoped to a named CT package, which distinguishes it from the singular get_codelist sibling by virtue of the 'all' aggregation. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction from the plural form alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the example ('package=sdtmct-2024-03-29') shows the expected input but no when-to-use or when-not guidance. The useful routing hint ('use get_ct_packages if you don't know the package names') lives only in the schema for the package parameter, not in the description, and there is no mention of when get_codelist (singular) would be the better choice.

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