Find Semantic Software Tools (OKG)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description's role is reduced. The description adds that data is CC0 and specifies return fields, which is useful but not critical. No contradictions 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 concise, well-organized with clear sections, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 search tool with only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers usage, examples, and return structure. It could mention pagination or error behavior, but the current level is sufficient for this complexity.

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%, so parameters are fully documented. The description repeats the parameter names and adds example values for 'query', but does not provide additional syntactic or behavioral details beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it searches the OKG catalog for semantic web software tools, listing concrete examples like ontology editors and SPARQL engines. This clearly defines the resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_okg_resources' or 'list_okg_categories'.

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 provides specific scenarios (e.g., validating ontologies, working with RDF data). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives (e.g., 'search_okg_resources' for broader searches), which would improve decision-making.

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