run_gov_data_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions billing to the user's Apify account and that it returns rows, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potentially destructive, or has side effects. Since this runs arbitrary tools, the description should clarify safety characteristics but does not.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and cost. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or verbosity.

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 description is minimal for a tool that runs 114 different tools with variable outputs. It states output as 'rows' but does not explain the structure, pagination, or how to discover available tools (though sibling tools like search_gov_data_tools partially cover this). Without an output schema, more detail on return format or error handling would improve completeness. Still, given the schema covers parameters, it is adequate but not rich.

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 the schema fully describes all three parameters, including defaults and ranges for maxItems. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does tie the 'input' parameter to describe_gov_data_tool, which is helpful context.

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's function: it runs any one of 114 catalog tools and returns their rows. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are individual named tools. The verb 'Run' with the resource 'any one of the 114 catalog tools' is unambiguous.

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 usage for executing any catalog tool generically, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over a dedicated tool or when to avoid it. It does reference describe_gov_data_tool for input schema, providing some context, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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