hk_open_data_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful operational context ('free, no key' — i.e., no authentication required), but says nothing about result limits, pagination, rate limits, or output shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the scope and the free/no-key fact come first. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity is partly a symptom of omitted information rather than disciplined trimming.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should outline what a search returns and how 'rows' behaves. Neither is covered, leaving the agent under-informed about invocation and results.

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% and the description mentions neither parameter. 'query' is fairly self-evident, but 'rows' is ambiguous (page size? max results? default?) and is left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 (Search) and resource (Hong Kong government open-data catalogue DATA.GOV.HK), which is enough to tell it apart from unrelated siblings like sec_edgar_fulltext or fred_series. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related hk_open_data_filter sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The presence of the sibling hk_open_data_filter makes the missing routing information a real gap — an agent cannot tell from this text which of the two HK tools to pick.

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