ckan_filas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: the portal silently truncates results, and the response carries a total_datastore field that should be reconciled against the file. It does not cover auth needs, rate limits, or how pagination state is carried between calls.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the capability plus its key caveat are front-loaded. The final clause is slightly compressed ('compáralo con el fichero') and could be a touch clearer, but nothing is wasted.

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 and no annotations mean the description is the only context, and it covers the return field and the truncation gotcha. However, it claims pagination while the schema exposes only 'limite' with no offset or cursor parameter, leaving the actual paging mechanism unexplained.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It does well for 'filtros' by giving a concrete equality example ({"Territorio": "Madrid"}) and implies 'limite' via pagination, but leaves 'portal' and 'recurso' (URL vs. id/slug) undefined.

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 and resource: read datastore rows of a CKAN resource, with equality filters and pagination. An agent can distinguish this from ckan_buscar (dataset search) and socrata_filas (different portal family) by the 'datastore de un recurso CKAN' phrasing, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use it when you need filtered rows without the portal's silent cap. The closing instruction ('compáralo con el fichero antes de dar un total') is a useful workflow rule for totals, but there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for when a different tool is preferable.

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