opengov_list_governments

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description goes well beyond: it discloses the keyless endpoint behavior, client-side filtering, active/non-internal portal filtering, exact totalAvailable semantics, error behavior (429/5xx/timeout throws), and schema-drift detection. This richly informs an agent about edge cases without contradicting annotations.

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 long but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameters, output, honesty notes, and exclusions. Some scope detail (525+ governments, 42 states + DC) is useful context rather than filler. It earns most of its length, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description specifies the output shape, the pagination metadata, error behavior, keyless access, and relevant alternatives. It also maps to a data resource. For a list tool with four optional parameters, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that state/query filtering is client-side, specifying limit range 1..200, offset pagination with _meta.pagination.nextOffset, and clarifying that totalAvailable is the exact filtered count rather than page length. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the government portals on OpenGov Procurement,' and immediately frames it as 'the directory for opengov_search_solicitations.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the search tool that consumes its output and from sibling tools.

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?

It states when to use this tool ('directory for opengov_search_solicitations'), what to do with results ('Feed a result's code to opengov_search_solicitations'), and explicitly names exclusions: state-level bid feeds are NOT in this directory and are handled by socrata_query with specific datasets. This is exemplary alternative routing.

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