Lithuanian Data Portal documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: output is Markdown with absolute links, screenshots are rendered as images with descriptive alt text, and marker lists explain numbered markers. This is valuable return-format context.

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?

Three sentences, tightly front-loaded with what is returned, then input formats. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by explaining the Markdown return format, link absolutization, and screenshot/alt-text semantics. Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations, this is nearly complete; only pagination or size limits for very large pages are unaddressed.

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 the schema documents both parameters including the lang enum and its override/default behavior. The description adds format examples for the page parameter (URL, path, or slug) and an illustrative value, slightly exceeding the baseline of 3.

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+resource ('Returns one documentation page as Markdown') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_docs and list_pages as sources of the URL/path it accepts. This is precise and immediately actionable.

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 tells the agent where the input comes from (search_docs or list_pages) and gives concrete accepted formats with an example. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the sourcing relationship to siblings provides clear routing context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the return shape (nested per site, with title/link/description), but says nothing about result size, pagination, or the default when filters are omitted.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the key content (what comes back) is placed up front. The colon-fragment phrasing is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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 zero-required-param list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description's account of the returned structure is nearly enough. Only the default/no-filter behavior and result volume remain unaddressed.

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% and both enum parameters are fully documented with their omit-for-all semantics. The description adds no parameter detail, so the 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 states a clear resource (the documentation structure/page list) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (title, link, one-line description) in sidebar order. It doesn't distinguish this from siblings get_page or search_docs, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though search_docs and get_page clearly overlap for finding documentation content. The 'sidebar order' framing only weakly implies it is for browsing/navigation.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it searches both Lithuanian and English text, returns pages in the requested language, and returns matched passages plus links — non-obvious traits for a search tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then scope, then the operational directive. Every sentence carries information; the language directive is slightly tucked at the end rather than near the lang parameter, but there is no filler.

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, the description correctly compensates by describing what is returned (pages in the requested language with matching passages and links). Combined with the annotation-backed safety profile, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly; only cross-lingual edge behavior (e.g. mixing languages) is unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes further by tying the query to the lang parameter ("Write the query in the user's language"), clarifying the cross-lingual matching semantics (query language drives which pages are returned) rather than merely restating field names.

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 ("Full-text search over the Lithuanian Data Portal documentation") and scopes it by noting it is the same index as the site search box. It distinguishes itself functionally from get_page/list_pages by being a query-based search rather than a lookup, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implies usage (reach for this when you need to find pages by text, matching the site search box) and adds a language directive, but offers no explicit when-to-use versus get_page/list_pages and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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