Ver una organización y sus datasets

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known without the description. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond that: no indication of result size, truncation, or pagination, which is a real gap for a tool explicitly pitched at 'large publishers'.

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 the resource stated first and the use case second; nothing is padded. It is slightly clipped (semicolon splice) but no sentence 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 values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents the four parameters. Purpose, scope and the query filter are present; the only mild omission is the multi-portal source dimension, which the schema nevertheless covers.

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 every parameter (query, format, source, organization_id) is already documented in the schema, including the enum meanings and defaults. The description only restates the query filter ('filters dataset titles'), adding nothing about the source portal dimension or format.

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 CKAN organization together with its datasets, and adds the use case (browsing large publishers) with a concrete example slug. It distinguishes itself implicitly from list-style siblings by emphasizing 'one' organization, but never names search_organizations, which is the nearest alternative.

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 way to browse large publishers (e.g. sri-servicio-de-rentas-internas)' gives implied usage context, and the query hint suggests narrowing within big publishers. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. search_organizations / get_dataset_info guidance and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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