Ver una categoría temática

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes sample datasets (which the include_datasets parameter can toggle), but says nothing about source-specific behavior, missing categories, or result size.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core output ('details and sample datasets') comes first. It is arguably terser than ideal for a four-parameter tool, 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?

An output schema exists, so return-format description isn't needed, and param coverage is complete. What remains is a simple read-only lookup with clear provenance for the required argument, leaving only minor gaps around multi-source behavior.

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 all four parameters (format, source, category, include_datasets) carry their own enum/default documentation. The description only echoes the category-from-list_categories rule already stated in the schema, adding no new parameter meaning.

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 clear verb+resource: retrieve details plus sample datasets for a single CKAN thematic category. It also points at the list_categories sibling as the source of the required name, which lets an agent separate listing from detail-lookup. It doesn't explicitly contrast the two tools, so it falls just short of 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?

The parenthetical '(name from list_categories)' implies the intended workflow, i.e. call list_categories first, then look one up here. Beyond that there is no stated when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g. get_dataset_info vs this) guidance.

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