data_europa_search_romania

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses that results are harvested from Romanian government catalogs, that search is always country-scoped, that an empty query triggers browsing behavior, that theme filtering can exclude real results, and exactly what the response contains. This is rich, honest behavioral context.

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 efficiently organized and front-loaded: purpose first, then parameter semantics, then return format. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the length is justified given four undocumented parameters and no output schema.

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 search tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains scope, source, paging, filtering caveats, and the response shape in enough detail that an agent can invoke the tool correctly and interpret results without further documentation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to all four parameters, and it does: query gets example search terms and empty-query behavior, theme gets concrete EU code examples and a warning, limit gets its 100 cap, and page is explained as zero-based. This far exceeds 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Romanian public datasets on data.europa.eu.' It clearly defines the country scope ('Always scoped to Romania') and explains that the tool also covers data.gov.ro, making it unambiguous what this tool does and how it differs from broader or unrelated 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?

The description gives clear context on how to use the tool: empty query browses recent datasets, and the theme parameter should be used sparingly because most Romanian datasets lack theme tags and over-filtering can hide results. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer them, but the scoping and parameter guidance make intended usage clear.

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