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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose pagination behavior and parameter format restrictions, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free. 'Search' implies a query, yet the lack of explicit safety information prevents a higher score.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose statement, pagination note, then a compact Args block. Each element earns its place, though the Args section could be slightly more concise by integrating schema defaults. Overall it is appropriately sized and readable.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers params and pagination adequately. However, with no annotations, it omits side-effect/safety context and does not reference sibling tools for alternative usage, leaving the agent to infer some operational details.

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. It provides meaningful semantics for each parameter: dsid format with an example, and valid_date_min/max with explicit 'YYYY-MM-DD' formats and filtering semantics. It could further explain the meaning of default empty strings, but the provided details are clear and actionable.

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 tool's function: search for data files containing 'sensor' datatype data, optionally filtered by date range. It includes a specific verb (search), resource (data files with sensor datatype), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_filesearch_grid_files and get_filesearch_cyclone_fix_files by the datatype keyword.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you need sensor datatype data files. It explains pagination with get_filesearch_result_page but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some room for an agent to infer selection among the many filesearch sibling tools.

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