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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pagination behavior and the need to use a result_id for additional pages, and it defines the filter behavior for parameters and time range. It does not describe limits or failure modes, but the output schema likely covers return structure, so this is a strong disclosure.

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, immediately followed by pagination guidance and a prerequisite workflow. The Args list is compact, each line earning its place, with no filler or redundant restatement. It is detailed but still easy to scan.

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?

For a 7-parameter search tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool searches, which codes are valid and how to find them, how to paginate, and what each parameter means. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the 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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters, and it does. It gives dsid a concrete format example, explains that parameters is required and takes at least one value, provides datetime format for both min/max arguments, and clarifies products, grids, and levels as restrictive filters. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Search for data files containing grid datatype data.' It also lists the filtering dimensions, which distinguishes it from sibling file-search tools like get_filesearch_sensor_files and get_filesearch_cyclone_fix_files. The 'grid' scoping is explicit and prevents confusion with other datatype-specific searches.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: call get_filesearch_grid_filters first to discover valid codes, and use get_filesearch_result_page with the returned result_id for pagination. These instructions tell the agent when to use complementary tools and how to handle multi-page results, leaving little to inference.

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