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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the CKAN source and a usage hint, but does not provide additional behavioral context beyond annotations for a simple list operation.

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 with no waste. Front-loaded with purpose and includes a practical example of result usage.

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 good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It provides the source and a cross-reference usage hint. Could mention pagination, but limit parameter suffices.

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 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning for the limit parameter. The usage hint about org names relates to the output, not the input parameters.

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 lists publishing organizations on a specific site (data.overheid.nl) and mentions the CKAN source. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like list_groups, which might serve a similar purpose for groups.

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 provides a usage hint about using the organization name in search_datasets, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison with sibling list_groups.

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