opendatasoft_universal_query_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description merely says 'Query records,' implying a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or disclose any limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements). It fails to add context beyond the obvious.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the primary action. However, it is under-specified, which makes it too terse to be genuinely useful. It achieves brevity but at the cost of necessary detail.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. An agent lacks critical information about parameter syntax, expected response format, request examples, or edge cases. This is a query tool that needs much more context to be callable 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of parameter meaning, but it explains none of the six parameters. The agent has no idea what 'where', 'select', 'order_by', 'limit', 'dataset', or 'portal_url' do beyond inferred naming. This is a critical gap for a query tool.

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 a specific verb (Query) and resource (records from any OpenDataSoft Explore v2.1 dataset). It implies a read-only operation and distinguishes from siblings like aggregate_records (aggregation) and search_catalog (catalog search). However, it could be more explicit about the exact scope (e.g., filtering, selecting, sorting) and how it differs from other query-like siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings such as aggregate_records and search_catalog, the description does not mention scenarios where one might prefer this tool, nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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