OECD-Search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a URL for visual exploration, implying a read-only, non-destructive action, but does not detail aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. It adds some context but leaves behavioral traits under-specified.

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 front-loaded and efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core action and resource, and the second explains the user benefit. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It clarifies the purpose and usage but lacks details on parameters, return values, or behavioral constraints. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the generated URL entails would improve completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions generating a URL for a dataset but does not explain the meaning or usage of 'dataflow_id' and 'filter' parameters. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, leaving parameters unclear.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Generate an OECD Data Explorer URL') and the resource ('for a dataset'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_data_structure or query_data that handle different operations. It explicitly mentions the outcome ('direct link to explore data visually'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to provide users with a direct link to explore data visually in their browser'), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools. This gives good guidance but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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