run-gov-data-tool

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing metered billing per result row on the caller's Apify account, no charge on failed runs, and the crucial failure-vs-empty distinction (a failed run errors rather than returning zero rows). It also reconciles the readOnlyHint=false annotation by clarifying that the run is read-only toward the government source but starts a billed run on the user's account — context no annotation conveys.

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-loaded with the core action, then a clearly labeled COST AND SIDE EFFECTS block, so a reader gets the essential contract immediately. However, 'Call describe-gov-data-tool first' is stated twice, which is mild redundancy in an otherwise efficient definition.

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 wrapper tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: cost model, failure semantics, zero-row meaning, prerequisite describe call, and row-limit behavior. The absence of an explicit return shape is acceptable because the tool delegates to the described per-tool schema.

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 'tool', 'input', and 'maxItems' are already documented, and the description's repeated 'describe-gov-data-tool first to shape the input' is more usage guidance than parameter semantics. It mildly enriches the 'input' parameter by explaining where its shape comes from, but the schema does the heavy lifting, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: runs one of 120 catalog tools with a given input and returns its rows. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from describe-gov-data-tool, which is named as the schema-shaping step rather than the runner, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to call describe-gov-data-tool first to shape the input and to check the price before running, which is clear usage context and a named alternative. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. vs. search-gov-data-tools or the bundled sibling tools), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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