opengov_list_governments

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

The description provides extensive behavioral context beyond annotations: it is read-only (keyless GET), returns only active non-internal portals, filters client-side, uses anonymous endpoints, handles errors by throwing, and detects schema drift. It complements the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations without 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and is well-structured, covering filtering, output, usage with sibling, and honesty notes. Each sentence adds value, but it is relatively long and could be slightly more concise without losing essential information.

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 description compensates for the lack of an output schema by detailing the output structure (fields like code, name, city, state, website) and behavior of _meta and totalAvailable. It also covers error handling. However, it does not fully specify the _meta object fields besides pagination, and 'schema_drift' is mentioned but not defined.

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 input schema covers all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds semantics: explains client-side filtering for state and query, limit range 1..200, offset 0-based, and that totalAvailable is the exact filtered count. This extra context raises the score to 4.

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 'List the government portals on OpenGov Procurement' and specifies the resource (directory for opengov_search_solicitations). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it provides the code needed for opengov_search_solicitations and by describing the client-side filtering behavior.

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 explains when to use the tool: to list active government portals, optionally filtered by state, query, limit, and offset. It notes the client-side filtering and the output format. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or direct comparison with similar sibling tools like bonfire_list_organizations.

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