Explain Choice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds substantive behavioral detail by listing the scoring components (token matching, fuzzy matching, semantic similarity, metadata filters), which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention edge cases like null query, but this is not a major gap.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and what it shows, though it does not describe the exact return format. Given the simplicity of the tool and high schema coverage, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond indicating these parameters relate to the original search and filters, but it does not compensate beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Explain' and clearly identifies the resource ('the scoring breakdown for a provider search'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like opendata_providers_find (which presumably performs the search) and opendata_federate_compare (which compares federated results).

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 clearly implies the tool is used after a provider search to understand ranking, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides clear context without exclusions, which aligns with a 4.

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