opendatasoft_universal_check_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states that it compares expected fields to the schema, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on mismatches, whether it raises errors, or what the return value looks like. This lack of detail is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single, tightly woven sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and stays within one line, which is ideal for quick parsing by an agent. No unnecessary words or redundant details.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and only one documented parameter, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the expected result (e.g., a boolean, a list of differences, an error), how the comparison is performed, or any prerequisites like dataset existence. An agent would need to inspect sibling tools or guess to use this correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is only 33% (only expected_fields has a description). The tool description does not compensate by explaining portal_url or dataset parameters. It adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is already minimal in the schema, leaving the agent to guess the purpose and format of two key arguments.

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 ('Compare expected field names against the current OpenDataSoft dataset schema'), specifying the verb and resource. It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like inspect_dataset, which also deals with dataset schema. Thus a 4 is appropriate.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_dataset or query_records. There is no mention of context, constraints, or exclusions. The only hint is the word 'expected' implying a validation use case, but this is not explicit.

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