search_datasets

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search scope and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or result format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence declares the core function, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word is useful, and it is front-loaded with the key action.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description provides the core purpose and usage guidance. However, it lacks detail about the return format, pagination, or how results are ranked. Without an output schema, more information about what the agent should expect would improve completeness. Score 3 is adequate but with gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 50% (query has 'Text to search for', limit has no description). The tool description adds no meaning to either parameter beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'by title and description' but that describes the search scope, not the parameter semantics. For a tool with less than 80% coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 'Full-text search across LINDAS cubes by title and description', providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_cubes (which lists all cubes without search) and query_observations (which queries data). The examples ('population', 'forest', 'unemployment') further clarify the tool's 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when looking for datasets about a specific topic'. This provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though siblings are listed. This aligns with the '4=clear context, no exclusions' level.

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