search_huggingface_datasets

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

With no annotations, the description reveals it is free, requires no key, and uses the HF Hub API. It also describes the return structure, providing transparency about 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 has a clear structure with purpose, usage, args, and returns sections. It is front-loaded. Minor redundancy from mixed Russian/English wording, but still efficient.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameters, and return format. Schema coverage is low but description compensates well.

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 description adds context to both parameters: query example ('russian text') and max_results range (1-100). This goes beyond the schema's minimal titles (Query, Max Results).

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 it searches for datasets on Hugging Face using the HF Hub API. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_web or search_twitter by specifying the resource type (datasets).

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 gives a usage suggestion ('Подходит для: поиск датасетов для обучения, анализа данных') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance. This is adequate but not exemplary.

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