SPARQL mot katalog-grafen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it states the query scope, lists graph resource types and common prefixes, and explains return formats for SELECT/ASK vs CONSTRUCT/DESCRIBE. It also warns that the graph is large and advises LIMIT and COUNT usage. The claim that ASK returns rows is inaccurate (ASK returns a boolean), which slightly undermines transparency.

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 longer than a minimal one, but every section earns its place: purpose, when to use, graph contents, prefixes, return types, and a size warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then progressively adds supporting detail, with no filler.

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 SPARQL tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the essential context: target graph, supported query forms, return serializations, and querying pitfalls. It could mention timeouts, read-only guarantees, or clarify ASK's boolean return, but overall an agent has enough information to use the tool correctly.

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 the baseline applies; the description adds little about the two parameters themselves. It does provide context that helps construct the query (prefixes, resource types), but it does not elaborate on maxRows behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Kjør en SPARQL 1.1-spørring mot hele den høstede DCAT-grafen." It clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from the search sibling by stating when SPARQL is needed (counts, grouping, cross-references, unindexed properties). The resource types and prefixes further cement what the tool operates on.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when "søket ikke rekker til" (search is not enough) and gives concrete use cases: counts, grouping by publisher, cross-references, and unindexed properties. It does not mention alternatives such as ask or get_resource, so exclusions are not exhaustive, but the primary routing guidance is clear.

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