Malaysia Open Data Dataset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only a recap of query capabilities (filters, date range, sort, limit) and discloses nothing new such as rate limits, result-size caps, or source behavior; with annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that leads with the verb and resource and packs the dataset scope efficiently. It is a long run-on clause, but every element (sources, examples, capabilities) earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no description, and all 8 params are schema-documented. The description covers scope, sources, and examples, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly; only the source-selection nuance is left entirely to the schema.

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 every parameter including the id, sort, limit, filter/contains syntax, source enum, and date bounds is already documented. The description only echoes that filters/date-range/sort/limit exist and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 (Query) and resource (any Malaysian government open dataset by ID), names both backing sources (data.gov.my catalogue, OpenDOSM), and gives concrete content examples (fuel prices, CPI, population, trade). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling hazards/weather tools without opening the schema.

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 opening clause conveys when the tool is applicable (querying Malaysian gov open datasets by ID), but it names no alternatives and gives no exclusions or conditions for choosing one source enum over the other beyond the schema. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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