evds_datagroups

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait—that listing everything returns truncated results—which is not captured in annotations (none provided). However, it does not explain the output structure (left to the output schema) or mention potential errors, rate limits, or other behavioral details. The 'truncated' warning is valuable but limited.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, and the structural separation (intro, usage patterns, args) improves readability without fluff.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers all three optional parameters, their combinations, and the truncation caveat. The only minor gap is ambiguity when both category_id and query are provided simultaneously, but this is an edge case not critical for basic usage.

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 compensates fully by documenting each parameter in an 'Args' section: category_id (a category id from evds_categories), query (substring to search), and lang (TR/ENG). It also explains their roles in the overall usage patterns, providing clear meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 function: 'List or search EVDS datagroups (thematic bundles of series).' This specifies both the action and the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like evds_categories (categories) and evds_series_list (series).

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 specific usage patterns for each parameter combination: 'Provide category_id to list one category's datagroups, query to search all datagroup names, or neither to list everything (truncated).' This gives clear context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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