Get MQA Quality Score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context: returns quality score and detailed metrics (accessibility, etc.) from data.europa.eu, and the server restriction. This enriches transparency without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences with a bullet-like workflow, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, but strong annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose, workflow, and server restriction. It could mention output format details but the annotation coverage compensates.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it confirms the data source (dati.gov.it) for server_url. This meets the baseline expectation.

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 the tool retrieves MQA quality metrics for a dataset on dati.gov.it, specifying verb, resource, and scope. It contrasts with the sibling tool ckan_get_mqa_quality_details by outlining the typical workflow.

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 defines the workflow (ckan_package_show → ckan_get_mqa_quality → ckan_get_mqa_quality_details) and notes it only works with dati.gov.it, providing clear context for when to use it versus alternative tools.

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