describe_gov_data_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The word 'Return' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and the description explicitly frames it as a preparatory step. It does not mention potential complications, but the simplicity and clarity suffice.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the purpose and usage without redundancy. Every word adds value, and the structure front-loads the core function.

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?

With a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does (returns schema/docs), when to use it (before running another tool), and why (correct input shaping). No critical information is missing for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100% with a parameter description and example. The description adds context about the catalog size (114 tools), clarifying that 'tool' must be one of these, which is beyond the schema. This enriches the parameter's meaning.

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 returns the full input schema and documentation for any catalog tool, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('any one of the 114 tools'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_gov_data_tool and search_gov_data_tools by its meta-informational role.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to call this tool before run_gov_data_tool to shape input correctly, giving a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools like search_gov_data_tools, so it lacks full exclusion criteria.

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