search_datasets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the shape of each hit (IDs, titles, descriptions, organization, license, URL), which largely duplicates the output schema rather than disclosing new behavioral traits such as ranking, rate limits, or the 20-item clamp.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first and return contents second, with no filler or repetition. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile; the schema documents both parameters. The definition is essentially complete, with only minor missing context (e.g., result ordering or truncation behavior) that an agent might want.

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 100%: both 'query' (search text, Ukrainian or English) and 'limit' (clamped to 20) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search open-data datasets') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate itself from the siblings 'query' or 'get_schema', but the purpose itself is 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Search'; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling 'query' tool or any prerequisite/exclusion. The description never routes the agent among alternatives, leaving that inference to the agent.

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