Federate & Harmonize Across Providers

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by explaining normalization and merging behavior, auto-activation of providers, and that output is a 'cited series'. No contradictions.

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 three sentences: defining action, noting auto-activation, and providing a usage example. It is concise, front-loaded, and 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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested sub-queries, no output schema), the description explains orchestration well. It covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors. Missing details on error handling or output structure, but adequate for selection.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about normalization and merging but doesn't add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It explains the harmonize parameter implicitly.

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's purpose: run multiple plugin tool calls, normalize results onto common geography/time axes, and merge into one cited series. It distinguishes from siblings like opendata_tool_call (single call) and opendata_federate_compare (comparison) by specifying overlay of same indicator from different sources.

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 says 'Use this to overlay the same indicator from different open-data sources' with examples (Eurostat vs World Bank). It implies when to use but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives. The auto-activation note adds context.

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