list_opendata_resources

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that results are downloadable files and services, which is modest extra context; it says nothing about pagination, empty results, or whether services (WMS) behave differently from files.

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 short sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and the filter caveat second. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

The tool is simple (three params, all documented) and there is no output schema, so the description should hint at the return shape; '(files and services)' is the only signal about what a resource record contains. Adequate for calling it, but thin for interpreting the response.

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 schema already documents dataset_id, format, and limit including the default and max. The description's format examples (CSV, JSON, WMS) restate what the schema lists without adding format-matching semantics such as case-sensitivity or partial matching, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 downloadable resources (files and services)') scoped to 'an opendata.swiss dataset', which clearly separates it from dataset-metadata retrieval. It does not name the sibling it complements (get_opendata_dataset, search_opendata), so it falls short of a 5, but an agent knows exactly what this returns.

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?

Usage is only implied: the requirement for a dataset_id suggests it is a second-step call after finding a dataset, and the format filter is described as 'optional'. There is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use get_opendata_dataset instead if…' guidance, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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