find_sources

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it lists the return shape (portal URL, platform family, API type, dataset count, status, last-verified date) and flags the non-obvious default of status='live'. It omits authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior and whether 'any' materially changes result volume, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: what it finds, what it returns, what it does not search, and the default filter. No redundant restatement of the tool title and no filler.

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 an eight-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: return fields, search scope, the default status filter, and the sibling to use for datasets. Minor incompleteness remains on the two undocumented enum parameters and on limit/pagination semantics.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by clarifying the query parameter's actual search scope (portal names and notes rather than dataset titles) and reinforcing the status default. It adds nothing for key_required or platform_family, which are also undocumented in the schema, leaving those enums unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — finding New York open data portals/sources in BetaNYC's registry — and enumerates the source types covered (state, county, city, agency, library, nonprofit). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_datasets by noting it searches portal names and notes, not dataset titles.

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 clearly states the intended search surface (portal names and notes) and routes the agent to search_datasets when dataset titles are wanted. It also discloses that the default status filter is 'live', which affects results. It does not address the other siblings such as list_sources_for_place, so there is no exclusion guidance for those.

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