Compare Coverage Across Providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it makes sub-calls to plugin tools, which is already in the schema. It does not add significant behavioral detail beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but the description outlines the outputs (coverage matrix and merged series). For a federated tool, it is fairly complete, though could mention potential performance or timeout considerations.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: 'queries' sub-calls are normalized onto a common geography + time axis, and 'harmonize' controls which axes are normalized. This clarifies the merging behavior beyond the 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 clearly states the tool federates plugin tool calls and reports a coverage matrix alongside merged series, with a specific use case ('spot gaps or disagreements'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like opendata_federate_query by adding coverage reporting.

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 a clear context for use ('spot gaps or disagreements between open-data sources'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The differentiation from opendata_federate_query is implied but not explicit.

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