run-gov-data-tool

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

Far exceeds the annotations: it discloses metered per-row billing on the caller's Apify account, that failed runs are free, that failure returns an error with no rows (distinct from a zero-row success), and that failures/zero-rows carry next_step, must_supply and a verified example_input. It also clarifies that read-only applies only to the government source, which explains rather than contradicts readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose before the cost and failure semantics, and every clause carries a fact an agent needs (pricing, error vs empty, free validation). It loses a point for restating "Call describe-gov-data-tool first" twice and running somewhat long.

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 no output schema, a nested input object and 3 params, the description still closes the important gaps: return shape (rows), error-vs-empty semantics, cost model, and pre-flight validation behavior. An agent has everything required to decide and call 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 100%, so the schema already documents tool, input and maxItems; baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by telling the agent how to obtain the input object's shape (via describe-gov-data-tool) rather than guessing it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with quantified scope: "Run any one of the 123 catalog tools with the given input and return its rows." It is clearly the generic executor in a catalog where siblings are individual named tools, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow twice: call describe-gov-data-tool first to shape the input and to see the exact price before running. It does not, however, say when to call this generic runner versus invoking a specific named sibling like epa-contaminated-site-screener directly, leaving that routing decision to inference.

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