list_dataflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses caching behavior (the `fresh` param bypasses cache but refreshes it for others), explains endpoint fallback to session default, and mentions pagination. It could also note any permissions or rate-limit implications, but for a list operation this is largely sufficient. It adds meaningful context beyond what bare annotations would have provided.

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 multi-paragraph but each paragraph earns its place: an overview paragraph, an alternative guidance paragraph, a full Args list, and a Returns summary. It is verbose but not wasteful; a 5 would require tighter phrasing, though the current structure is well-organized and scannable.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description needn't detail return values, and it doesn't over-explain. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, alternatives, all parameters, caching semantics, and pagination. There is no obvious missing context that an agent would need to select and invoke this tool 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 0%, so the description's Args section is the only parameter documentation. It thoroughly explains each parameter: keywords as string or list, agency_id defaulting to session, limit/offset for pagination, endpoint for per-call provider override, and fresh with a clear rationale for when to use it. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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 'List available SDMX dataflows' with a specific verb and resource, and positions it as 'typically the first step in SDMX data discovery.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming an alternative (find_code_usage_across_dataflows) for when codes are already known, making the scope 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?

It explicitly says this is the first step in SDMX data discovery and provides a concrete 'instead' recommendation: 'If you already know a country code or indicator code, consider using find_code_usage_across_dataflows() instead.' This clarifies when to use this tool versus a sibling, which is exactly what usage guidelines should do.

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