Canada Open Data Organization List

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds useful context beyond those hints by naming the data source ('open.canada.ca CKAN Action API') and noting that no authentication is required. The mention of dataset counts also gives a preview of the response content. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, optional filtering, downstream usage, data source, and auth status are all delivered efficiently. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded before the source/API note.

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 a fully described two-parameter schema, rich read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what remains: scope, filter behavior, downstream slug usage, source, and auth requirements. There are no significant gaps an agent would need before calling this 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 description does not need to re-document parameters. It does reinforce that the query parameter is a substring filter on organization title, which aligns with the schema. The limit parameter is left to the schema; that is acceptable at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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: 'List federal/provincial departments and agencies publishing on the Government of Canada open data portal, with dataset counts.' It also clarifies the optional name-substring filter and explicitly connects the returned org slug to open-canada.dataset_search, distinguishing this reference tool from the dataset search/detail siblings.

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 clear downstream usage: 'Use the returned org slug as the `organization` filter for open-canada.dataset_search.' It also states 'no auth required,' which is helpful context for invocation. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative reference tools, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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