Listar los recursos de un dataset

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 genuinely non-annotation behavior: that it 'flags name groups that look like periodic series' and lists the returned fields, which helps an agent anticipate output shape and the series-detection behavior.

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 tight sentences: purpose and returned content first, forward routing second. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is sufficient to invoke correctly; the only modest gap is that it never positions itself against the other dataset-scoped list tools.

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 two enum parameters (format, source) fully documented in the schema. The description's 'format, size, URL and dates' refers to output fields rather than parameters, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Files (resources) in a CKAN dataset') and enumerates the returned fields (format, size, URL, dates), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like get_dataset_info or get_resource_info. It doesn't directly contrast with get_dataset_info, which also touches dataset contents, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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 only routing signal is the trailing 'Next: preview_resource_data or query_resource_data,' which points forward in the workflow but does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_dataset_info. Usage is implied by the forward pointer rather than explicitly conditioned.

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