undata_list_dataflows

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. It does disclose the return payload shape (dataset IDs, names, agencies, descriptions), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention list size, pagination, rate limits, or whether the list is exhaustive/filtered. Given a simple read/list operation with good payload disclosure, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three concise sentences, no filler. Each sentence earns its place: what it returns, what to do with the output, and how it fits into the tool workflow. The front-loaded purpose makes it immediately scannable.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and simple complexity, the description fully covers what's needed: what's returned and how to use the results. No gaps remain for an agent to guess at call semantics or return interpretation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to explain. The description adds value by explaining what the returned values mean and how to use a returned identifier downstream, compensating for the absence of any structured parameter documentation. The 0-param baseline of 4 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 has a specific verb+resource ('List all available UNdata SDMX dataflows'), clearly states what's returned (dataset IDs, names, agencies, descriptions), and explicitly positions it as the discovery entry point distinct from sibling tools that consume the 'id'. This strongly differentiates it from the other undata_* sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this first to discover what data is available, then use the 'id' in other tools like undata_get_wdi_data or undata_query.' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke this tool (as a first step) and names concrete alternative/next-step tools, providing strong usage direction.

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