Recursos de un dataset del catálogo de Uruguay

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying that it returns current ('vigentes') files with name, URL, format, and date, though it does not discuss pagination, authentication, or failure modes.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element—resource type, returned fields, source domain, parameter, and example—earns its place.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety semantics, the description supplies enough context for a one-parameter lookup: domain, identifier semantics, and returned fields. A minor gap is that it does not say how to obtain a valid dataset identifier or what happens when it is invalid.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does so by explaining that 'dataset' is the dataset identifier and giving a concrete example slug, which substantially compensates for the bare schema.

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 identifies the resource: current files (name, URL, format, date) for a dataset from catalogodatos.gub.uy, retrieved by dataset identifier. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'obtiene' and does not differentiate from siblings, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied: call it when you already have a dataset identifier and need its current files. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, which is acceptable only because this is a narrow lookup tool.

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