query_eu_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'raw query' and 'raw JSON response' but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation versus a mutation. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 appropriately brief with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. However, the Args section could be more informative given the low schema coverage, and the structure is functional but not optimally front-loaded with critical usage context.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, response structure beyond 'raw JSON', and doesn't compensate for the missing parameter documentation, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides only basic examples ('/datasets', '/catalogues') without explaining parameter formats, constraints, or semantics. The 'params' field is particularly underspecified as 'Query parameters' with no guidance on structure or valid values.

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 action ('Make a raw query') and target resource ('EU Open Data Portal API'), distinguishing it from siblings like query_census or query_nasa. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from query_datagov or query_worldbank which might have similar raw query patterns.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_eu_dataset_info or search_eu_datasets. The description mentions it's for 'raw query' but doesn't explain when a raw query is preferable over more structured sibling tools.

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