bcn.recommend_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is deterministic, source-bounded, and intended as a recommender. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but these are less critical. The description implies read-only behavior, which is adequate.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, usage context, and parameter hints. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action. Examples are concrete and helpful.

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 the tool has an output schema (though not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers usage sequence, parameter intent, and ties to sibling tools. Slightly incomplete: could specify what 'high-value' means or the format of recommendations, but overall sufficient for an AI agent.

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 25% (only limit parameter described). The description adds 'natural-language city question' for the query parameter, but provides no added meaning for task or place_kind, which are enums without descriptions. Baseline 3 because description partially compensates for low schema coverage.

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 it recommends high-value Open Data BCN resources for natural-language city questions. It differentiates from sibling tools like bcn_search_packages by specifying it should be used 'before package search' for broad questions, and mentions follow-up 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?

Explicitly tells when to use (before package search for broad questions like 'trees on a street', 'facilities near a place') and suggests follow-up tools (bcn_get_resource_info, bcn_resolve_place, bcn_query_resource_geo). Also notes the recommender is deterministic and source-bounded.

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