Find External Alignments

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and description confirms 'Find' (read operation). Additionally, description lists specific alignment types searched (owl:sameAs, skos:exactMatch, etc.), adding context 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?

The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections, plus a usage line. Sentences are concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple read-only query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, parameters, return fields, and use case. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter 'uri' with description 'URI of the concept in schema.gov.it'). Description repeats this without adding new meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states 'Find all alignment links from a concept in schema.gov.it toward external resources.' This is a specific verb (Find) and resource (alignment links), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like find_okg_alignments (OKG-specific) and others.

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 'Use when' section explicitly states: 'Understanding how a local concept maps to external systems (Eurostat, DBpedia, EU Publications Office, etc.)' This provides clear context, though it doesn't mention when not to use.

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