Find OKG Alignments for a schema.gov.it Resource

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already cover safety. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the three-step process, how matches are classified (confirmed vs candidates), and how cross-referencing works. No contradiction with 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 numbered steps, separate sections for args and returns, and a 'Use when' clause. Every sentence is concise and informative, with no fluff.

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 simple input (one param), clear annotations, and no output schema, the description fully explains the process, return fields, and confidence levels. The agent has all necessary information to use the tool correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'uri' is fully described in both the schema and the description as 'URI of a schema.gov.it resource'. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description's additional mention of 'concept, class, or vocabulary' adds useful specificity.

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: given a schema.gov.it URI, find related resources in the Open Knowledge Graphs catalog. It uses a specific verb 'find' and resource 'OKG alignments', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_okg_resources or find_external_alignments.

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 includes a 'Use when' section that explicitly advises discovering international equivalents or checking representation in global standards. While it does not list counterexamples, the context strongly implies appropriate usage.

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