get_concepts

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses caching behavior and that it searches all TNSO concept schemes. Missing details like error handling, return format, or what happens if concept_id is not found, but the core behavior is clear.

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 that efficiently convey purpose, scope, and a usage hint. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description implies the return is the resolved name. For a simple lookup, this is fairly complete, but mentioning the return type (string) or possible error responses would improve completeness.

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 describes concept_id with an example but lacks description for lang. The description adds 'Use lang='th' or lang='en'.', which clarifies the lang parameter's enum values and usage. This adds value beyond the schema, especially for the undocumented lang parameter.

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 the tool's purpose: resolving a TNSO SDMX concept id to its Thai or English name. It specifies the scope (all TNSO concept schemes) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_codelist_description, which deals with codelists.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for concept resolution) and includes a usage hint for the language parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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