data_gouv_fr_search_data_gouv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it searches public datasets via the official API, omitting details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, default query behavior, or response structure. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent to guess at pagination, error handling, and search semantics.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No word is wasted, and it earns its place by providing immediate understanding of the tool's primary function.

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 a simple search tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not mention the default query or page_size, which are in the schema, nor does it disclose any usage limits or response wrapping. Given the tool's low complexity, it does not need extensive documentation, but a note on returning results or next-page handling would push it higher.

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%, with both parameters having descriptions in the schema ('Search query.' and 'Number of datasets to return.'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level detail, but given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not need to repeat what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('public datasets on data.gouv.fr'), which clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'search_organizations' and 'search_dataservices'. However, it is somewhat generic and does not mention search scope (e.g., title vs. full text) beyond 'public datasets'. It meets the 'specific verb+resource' criterion but lacks differentiation finesse.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., search_organizations, search_dataservices). The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The only implied usage is from the tool name itself, which is not sufficient.

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