core_list_available_resources

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and steps up: it says results are exhaustive ('every'), that each item includes its description and links, and that it should 'Answer in the user's language.' This adds real behavioral context beyond the schema; it doesn't cover failure modes, but those are minor for a zero-parameter listing tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage triggers and behavioral notes in a logical order. The trailing 'Examples: list_available_resources()' line is mildly redundant for a zero-argument call, but the overall structure is tight with no wasted sentences.

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?

For a zero-parameter, low-complexity tool with an output schema already present, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke it correctly: scope, when to use it, output contents, and response language. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema. The description sensibly focuses on output behavior rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List every complementary resource this server offers,' enumerating exact content types (documents, publications PDF, reference datasets, external visualizers). The scope is clearly distinct from all 18 siblings, which are IATI data-querying 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool whenever the user asks which resources, documents, publications, books or visualizers exist or are available,' with concrete example queries like 'is there a data visualizer for X?'. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the positive triggers are specific enough that selection ambiguity is minimal.

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