ons_data_query

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds that queries hit 'live' ONS observations, which implies current data and aligns with openWorld, but it does not disclose pagination limits, output size, or what auto-resolution means beyond the schema's term description. No contradiction.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the core action and then states the two invocation modes. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no required params, the description gives the central mode distinction but not enough to assemble a correct query (how filters/measure/timeRange interact, what the output schema returns, or whether search term replaces dataset/edition/version entirely). Output schema exists and annotations help, so it is not critically incomplete, but it leaves meaningful gaps.

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 58%, so the description carries some but not full responsibility. It adds the useful distinction between live mode (dataset/edition/version) and search-term mode, but leaves measure, geography, filters structure, and timeRange semantics to the schema, and several params are undocumented.

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 names the verb 'Query' and resource 'live ONS observations', and identifies two entry modes: explicit dataset/edition/version or search term. It distinguishes from metadata siblings like ons_data_dimensions/editions/versions but does not contrast with the close sibling ons_data_get_observation.

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 phrase 'dataset/edition/version or search term' conveys a clear context for using the tool in one of two modes, but it never names alternative tools or states when not to use it. An agent must infer the boundary against ons_data_get_observation, ons_search_query, or ons_data_create_filter.

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