opendatasoft_universal_health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only connectivity check but does not state what happens on failure, whether it returns a boolean or detailed status, or any side effects. The single sentence lacks the necessary detail for an agent to anticipate behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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 concise—a single sentence with no waste—and front-loads the action. However, it is too terse to cover essential behavioral and parameter semantics, suggesting brevity at the expense of completeness. It is not inappropriately long, but it under-specifies.

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 health-check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot know what result to expect (e.g., status code, boolean, error details) or how to interpret the check outcome. The description leaves critical context undefined, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 covers only the 'dataset' parameter with a description; 'portal_url' has no description and is required. The tool description mentions 'portal' but doesn't clarify the expected format or meaning of portal_url beyond being a URI. Since schema coverage is 50%, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameter, but it doesn't, leaving ambiguity.

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 states a clear verb ('check') and resource ('portal and optional dataset'), and specifies the context (reachability through Explore v2.1). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch data or query records, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage as a health check before other operations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like opendatasoft_universal_query_records or opendatasoft_universal_inspect_dataset. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing.

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