zornade_admin_lists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The phrase 'reference data' and 'lists' conveys a read-only lookup, and the filter relationships are explicitly described. It does not mention response shape or errors, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 concise sentences communicate the resource, the three options, and the filtering behavior with no filler. The key information is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool with a 3-parameter schema, the description plus schema fully covers input selection and filter logic. The lack of an output schema means the return format is not explicitly stated, but the simple list nature of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description restates which filters apply to which type, which adds interpretive clarity but does not go beyond what the schema already says.

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 immediately identifies the resource as 'Italian administrative reference data' and enumerates the three list types: regions, provinces, and municipalities. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', but the domain clearly distinguishes it from the geocode and parcel sibling tools.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for administrative reference data and describes which filters apply to which list type. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the sibling tools are clearly unrelated in domain.

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