datasets_journalists_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: data is from news outlets' staff pages, no cross-outlet search, and records include outlet, title, beat topics, and contact info. It does not mention pagination constraints or rate limits, but provides substantial transparency about the data source and coverage.

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 reasonably concise. It starts with core purpose, explains dataset origin, then lists enums. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more compact by avoiding repetition of enum values that are already in the schema.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return fields (outlet, title, beat topics, contact info). It also describes the enum options and data source. Missing explicit mention of pagination limits (page * page_size <= 10000) which is only in schema, but overall complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100% (all 8 parameters described). The description lists enum values for vertical, contact_type, and sort, which are also in the schema descriptions, so it adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches the journalists dataset, explains the dataset's origin (crawled from news outlets' staff pages), and distinguishes it from other dataset search tools by specifying the data source and content. It uses a specific verb+resource and provides enough context to differentiate from siblings like datasets_airbnb_search or datasets_jobs_search.

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?

Description explains that there is no cross-outlet upstream search and that the dataset is built from a curated roster, which implies limitations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as datasets_journalists_facets or datasets_journalists_item. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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