Ver metadata de un recurso (archivo)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the operation is metadata-only for one resource and enumerates the returned fields, but it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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, immediately stating the resource and the metadata contents. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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?

Given the simple read-only operation, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies enough context to call the tool correctly. It does not explain return values, but with an output schema that is unnecessary; only stronger usage routing would improve completeness.

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 resource_id, format, and source are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions return fields, not parameter meaning, so it adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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: retrieves metadata for one CKAN resource/file, and lists the metadata fields returned (format, size, MIME type, download URL, parent dataset). It is clear enough to distinguish from dataset-level tools by scope, but it does not name any sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as download_resource or get_dataset_info. An agent can infer it is for metadata retrieval, but nothing explicit routes it against siblings.

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