list_record_sets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It unambiguously describes a read-only listing operation and enumerates exactly what is returned, including field data types and source chains. There is no misleading mutation or side-effect language; the non-destructive behavior is implicit but clear.

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 with a clear purpose first, a helpful definition of RecordSet, and an explicit Usage note. There is some redundancy between the earlier sentence enumerating returned fields and the final Returns list, but overall the structure is logical and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output, and relationship to `get_records_preview`, but it does not explain how to provide the input: whether one of `jsonld_url`, `jsonld_path`, or `jsonld_content` is required and whether exactly one should be supplied. Since the tool has three optional-looking inputs, this is a notable gap for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the input parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no extra detail about how to choose between `jsonld_url`, `jsonld_path`, and `jsonld_content`, making this a baseline 3 rather than a higher score.

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 the tool lists RecordSets in a Croissant/GeoCroissant document and defines what a RecordSet is. It also distinguishes this tool by noting that it returns high-level dataset structure rather than the actual record data, and explicitly points to `get_records_preview` as the next step.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: call this tool to discover which RecordSet names to pass to `get_records_preview`. It does not contrast against every sibling tool, but it establishes a clear entry point in the workflow and implies this is the discovery/listing step.

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