search_state_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only describes the basic action, omitting details like handling of unsupported states, pagination, rate limits, or authentication. The existence of an output schema (per context) may compensate slightly, but the description itself is insufficient.

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 a single sentence, making it very concise. However, it lacks structure and important details. It is appropriately brief but could benefit from being slightly longer with organized information.

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 complexity (3 parameters, sibling tools) and the existence of an output schema (implied by context), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'supported US state' means, how to determine support, or how this tool relates to 'list_curated_state_portals' and others.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter. The 'state' parameter lacks valid values (e.g., postal codes or full names), 'query' syntax is undefined, and 'limit' behavior is unspecified. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Search the curated official open-data portal for a supported US state,' identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_curated_state_portals' (lists portals, not search) and 'search_socrata_catalog' (specific platform). However, the term 'curated official open-data portal' is somewhat vague.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_socrata_catalog' or 'find_us_data_sources.' It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended contexts.

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