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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It notably states that results are paginated and explains how to retrieve additional pages using a result_id. It also implies read-only search behavior. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the time range is invalid, leaving gaps in the behavioral profile.

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 compact: two sentences cover purpose and pagination, followed by a clean, structured Args block. Every sentence carries necessary information—no filler, no redundancy. The front-loaded purpose and immediate pagination note make it easy to parse.

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 simplicity (3 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it searches, optional filters, and the pagination mechanism. It also specifies parameter formats. It could have mentioned edge cases (e.g., when valid_datetime_min > max), but the output schema likely documents return structure, so overall it is quite complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It does: it explains dsid as 'Dataset ID (dNNNNNN)' with an example, and clarifies valid_datetime_min/max as 'valid on/after' and 'valid on/before' with explicit format 'YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema fields, making parameter usage unambiguous.

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: 'Search for data files containing "cyclone_fix" datatype data', which immediately distinguishes it from sibling filesearch tools (grid, sensor) by datatype. It also mentions optional time filtering, further clarifying the scope. This is a clear, differentiated purpose.

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 makes the use case evident: use this tool when you need cyclone_fix data files, optionally filtered by time. It also gives post-invocation guidance ('use get_filesearch_result_page with the returned result_id to fetch additional pages'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternatives like get_filesearch_grid_files, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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