french_energy_open_data_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It simply says 'Search' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention any potential network calls, rate limits, result format, pagination, or whether this is safe to call. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, and the main action is front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient structure – it lacks the typical components (e.g., context, result, or parameter hints) that make a description usable.

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 has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide enough context for an agent to call it correctly. It does not explain what the query should contain, how page_size affects results, or what a response looks like. The description is inadequate for a tool that relies entirely on textual guidance.

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 compensate for the parameters. However, the description does not mention either 'query' or 'page_size' at all. The schema provides defaults and constraints, but the description adds no meaning to what these parameters do or how to use them effectively.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('data.gouv.fr for French energy datasets'), which makes the tool's core purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish it from the sibling 'search_odre_catalog', which also searches a catalog, so it loses a point for lacking differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The description only says what it does, not when to prefer it over the sibling tools like 'search_odre_catalog' or 'get_sources' – no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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