find_microdata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does say the tool will 'state their access conditions', which hints at the output, but it does not explain search relevance, filtering, limitations, or how results are ordered. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then specifies what the tool returns, making it easy to scan and interpret.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and an output schema present. The description covers the basic purpose and result, but the unexplained 'country' parameter and the lack of any guidance on how relevance is determined leave meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The required 'query' parameter is self-evident, but the optional 'country' parameter is entirely unexplained: does it filter by the country of the data, the source, or the catalogue? The description adds no parameter-level value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('public microdata catalogues'), and adds what the tool produces ('state their access conditions'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_sources or search_indicators, which target different resources or 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 implies the tool is for locating public microdata catalogues and access conditions, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer, leaving the decision to inference.

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