suggest_nonempty_queries

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses HTTP probing behavior with a budget (max_probes), the relaxation strategy, and that alternatives are validated. Also explains the endpoint parameter overrides session endpoint for this call only. Lacks details on errors or side effects, but core behaviors are covered.

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?

Overview is two focused sentences, followed by a clean Args list. No fluff—every line adds functional value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 tool's moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input semantics, algorithm, and probing budget. It omits edge cases like invalid URLs or no-alternatives-found behavior, but for an agent deciding to invoke the tool, it provides enough context.

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%, but the Args block explains all 7 parameters with meaningful semantics: 'None = try all' for relax_dimensions, 'budget' for max_probes, 'currently only least_change' for strategy, and listed values for intent_hint. Doesn't fully explain intent_hint's effect, but covers the essentials.

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?

Description opens with 'Suggest nearby non-empty SDMX queries when the original returns no data,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like probe_data_url or get_data_availability by focusing on recovery suggestions for empty results.

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?

States a clear trigger condition ('when the original returns no data') and describes the approach (bounded relaxations, removing one filter at a time). This gives contextual use case, but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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