french_associations_search_datasets

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 implies a read-only search operation but does not state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or the response format. It simply says 'Search', which is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about consequences and return 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 is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and lists concrete examples efficiently. Every word contributes to clarifying the scope. It is appropriately terse without any fluff or repetition.

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 simplicity of the tool and the existence of sibling tools that might overlap, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what datasets are returned, how the query is matched, or how results are paginated. No output schema exists, so the description should have provided at least a hint about the return value. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema or guess from the sibling context.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions neither 'query' nor 'page_size': what they mean, how to format the query, or what page_size controls. The defaults and constraints in the schema are self-explanatory, but without any textual explanation the description fails to add value or clarify usage beyond the raw 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 the verb 'Search', the resource 'data.gouv.fr', and the specific object 'association datasets', with a concrete list of example dataset types (RNA, JOAFE, subsidies, local grants). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_subsidies, which targets subsidies specifically, and get_sources which likely lists sources.

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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use this compared to the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, conditions, or when not to use it. An agent would have to infer from the name that this is a general dataset search versus more specific tools like search_subsidies or get_sources.

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