OECD dataflow structure (dimensions & codes)

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining it pulls the dataflow and all referenced structures as SDMX-JSON. It also notes the version handling for dataflowId. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the behavior is well-covered.

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 concise (about 60 words), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds necessary context. No redundant information.

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?

While the tool's purpose is clear and annotations cover safety, the description lacks details about the output format beyond 'as SDMX-JSON.' Given no output schema, the agent may need more guidance on interpreting the result.

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% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the version handling for dataflowId and providing an example, which helps agents construct valid inputs.

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: discovering a dataflow's dimensions, key order, and allowed codes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like oecd_data and oecd_dataflows by specifying its role in building a valid key before fetching data.

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 explicitly advises using this tool before oecd_data to build a valid key, providing clear context. While it does not list alternative tools or when not to use it, the sibling names (oecd_dataflows, oecd_data) implicitly cover this.

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