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 mentions optional filtering by category but doesn't describe other behaviors such as pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a usage hint in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and intent. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing efficiency.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at usage but misses key details like parameter semantics, behavioral traits (e.g., pagination), and output expectations. For a tool in this context, more information is needed to guide effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'category' filtering, ignoring the 'limit' parameter entirely. No details are provided on parameter formats, constraints, or effects, leaving both parameters poorly explained beyond what the bare schema indicates.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('OECD dataflows/datasets'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'search_dataflows' by emphasizing browsing rather than searching, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description avoids tautology by adding context about filtering and topic areas.

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 implies usage for browsing datasets by topic area, suggesting it's for exploratory discovery rather than targeted queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_dataflows' or 'get_popular_datasets', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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