datos_query_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying this queries 'filas de un recurso tabular' (rows of a tabular resource) and mentions the CKAN datastore context, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with large result sets beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place - the first sentence states what the tool does, the second provides crucial prerequisite information. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 query tool with comprehensive annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains the tool's purpose, establishes the prerequisite relationship with datos_get_dataset, and mentions the CKAN datastore context. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't explain what the query returns (e.g., data format, structure), which would be helpful for completeness.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description mentions resource_id is required and obtainable via datos_get_dataset, which adds some context beyond the schema, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning for filters, limit, or offset parameters beyond what's in their schema 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 clearly states the action ('Consulta filas' - query rows) and target resource ('recurso tabular del INE vía CKAN datastore'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'datos_search_datasets' or 'datos_get_dataset', which appear related but serve different purposes.

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 provides clear context by mentioning that resource_id is 'obtenible via datos_get_dataset', establishing a prerequisite relationship with a sibling tool. This helps guide when to use this tool (after obtaining a resource ID). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'datos_search_datasets' for broader searches.

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