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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the main safety aspects. The description adds the all_fields behavior (names/descriptions vs. IDs) and the specific data source, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or default result size, which would enhance transparency.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence for purpose and one for parameter guidance. Every word adds value, and the core action is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool.

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 list tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential information: what is listed, where from, and how to get extended details. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit pagination semantics for limit and offset, though these are intuitive based on their names.

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 schema provides no descriptions for parameters (coverage 0%). The description explains all_fields (names and descriptions vs. IDs) but leaves limit and offset unexplained. Their names imply pagination, but the description doesn't confirm their role, so parameter semantics are only partially compensated.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing New Zealand government organizations that publish datasets from the data.govt.nz CKAN catalogue. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('organizations'), and naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like organization_show (which retrieves a single organization) and group_list (which lists groups, not organizations).

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 usage for listing organizations but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like organization_show or package_list. It provides parameter-level guidance for all_fields, but lacks clear 'when to use this vs. other tools' instructions.

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