idescat.get_table_metadata

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals read-only inspection nature, explains optional place_query triggers filter_guidance, and describes output fields (dimension IDs, category IDs, recommended_data_call). Lacks detail on error conditions or restrictions, but sufficiently transparent for a metadata inspection tool.

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 sentences: first states purpose and prerequisite, second covers optional parameter, third explains downstream use. No redundant words, information is front-loaded. Each sentence contributes distinct value.

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's role in a pipeline (6 params, 4 required, no annotations), the description covers key aspects: prerequisite, optional feature, and how to use results. It does not detail all parameters, but the output schema is available and the tool's purpose is clear. Minor gaps remain for full parameter documentation.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains geo_id (through prerequisite context) and place_query (explicitly with examples). Other parameters (lang, node_id, table_id, statistics_id) are not described, though their roles can be inferred from tool name and typical use. Adds some meaning but not full semantics.

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?

Description clearly states 'Inspect an IDESCAT table' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself by referencing prerequisite 'idescat_list_table_geos' and downstream tool 'idescat_get_table_data'. It also mentions optional usage for filter_guidance.

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 states prerequisite (after selecting geo_id with idescat_list_table_geos) and downstream integration (use returned IDs in idescat_get_table_data). Provides context for when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the implicit differentiation from sibling tools.

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