tuik_describe_dataflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the key template semantics, position order, empty-slot meaning, and language parameter. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only metadata operation or whether any API call/network access occurs, which would make it fully transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and argument details. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure is easy to scan. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately concise for the information provided.

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 is simple (2 parameters, 1 required) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's role in the workflow, key syntax, parameter formats, and typical usage. This is complete for both selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully describes both parameters: dataflow_id is defined as a 'Three-part SDMX id' with a concrete example, and lang is described as 'Label language for codelists' with allowed values 'tr' or 'en'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Describe a TUIK SDMX dataflow: dimensions, codelists, key template.' This distinguishes it from sibling data-fetching tools like tuik_get_data and tuik_download_data by focusing on metadata exploration.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use before tuik_get_data when a dataflow refuses key='ALL' or to build a narrower key.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and why, and the example key format illustrates how it connects to subsequent data retrieval.

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