get_dataflow_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and explains parameter behaviors (e.g., endpoint defaults to session and can be overridden per call), but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, or discuss auth/rate limits. This is acceptable for a simple getter, but could be more explicit.

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 compact, with a clear one-line purpose, a usage sentence, and a truncated Args/Returns block. It is well organized and every line adds value, though it could arguably be tightened further.

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 tool has a simple read-only profile and an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately, but lacks mention of potential errors, timeouts, or performance considerations, which is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It provides descriptions for all three parameters, with endpoint getting the most detail (optional key, examples, default behavior), while dataflow_id is only described as 'the dataflow identifier,' which is minimally informative but sufficient given the tool's purpose.

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 opens with 'Get detailed structure information for a specific dataflow,' which clearly identifies the action and target. It also enumerates the returned components (dimensions, attributes, measures, codelist references) and positions it relative to list_dataflows(), distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this after list_dataflows() to understand data organization,' giving a clear sequential usage guideline. It does not, however, provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools for other scenarios, 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.