socrata_filas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds two useful facts (values come back already type-converted, field names must be ASCII-stripped), but says nothing about read-only semantics, the default 100-row cap, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the response looks like for a tool that clearly has a truncated default result set.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the resource and portal, with no filler. The parenthetical id and the ASCII note are dense but each carries information; the phrasing is somewhat telegraphic and the SoQL hint is buried at the end rather than attached to the parameters it governs.

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?

A five-parameter query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions needs the description to explain both the query model (SoQL clauses, result limits) and the return shape. It covers the dataset id format and one data-formatting quirk but leaves the default limit, pagination, and response structure entirely 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 0%, so all five parameters rely on the description. It documents the required 'conjunto' via the id example and gives a field-naming convention relevant to select/where/order, and mentions SoQL, which implies the clause style. However, it never explains that where/select/order are raw SoQL strings, nor what 'limite' means or that it defaults to 100, leaving most parameters underspecified.

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: retrieve the rows of a Socrata dataset from analisi.transparenciacatalunya.cat, with a concrete id example (gn9e-3qhr). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling ckan_filas, which fetches rows from a different portal, so an agent must infer which one to pick.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus ckan_filas or almacen_sql, and no prerequisites, pagination advice, or coverage caveats (e.g., that only the Socrata-hosted Generalitat datasets work here). The portal name hints at the applicable domain but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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