Get MQA Quality Details

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it details the exact output contents (metrics grouped by FAIR dimension, HTTP statuses, weight, gain) and mentions methodology v2 and differences for previous-methodology datasets. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 somewhat long but each sentence adds value: main purpose, output details, server constraint, and workflow. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses structured flow. Slightly over-long but not wasteful.

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 tool with detailed output but no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned. It covers the methodology, output fields, server limitation, and workflow. Missing explicit error handling or pagination, but not critical for a read-only details endpoint.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., server_url's domain constraint is already in the schema description). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed MQA quality reasons for a dataset', and specifies the output details. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ckan_get_mqa_quality by explicitly mentioning it lists failing metrics, whereas the overview tool gives scores.

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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Only works with dati.gov.it server' and a typical workflow ckan_get_mqa_quality → ckan_get_mqa_quality_details. This tells the agent when to use this tool versus its sibling and sets clear expectations about server requirements.

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