french_public_procurement_search_datasets

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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only hints that this is a web search against an external portal (data.gouv.fr). It never explicitly states the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor does it disclose pagination behavior, rate-limit expectations, or how 'datasets' results are shaped. The word 'Search' implies safety but nothing is stated outright.

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?

A single efficient sentence front-loaded with the verb 'Search' and the resource target. Every element earns its place, and the example list is informative without bloat. It loses a point only because the examples could arguably have been used to signpost the query param semantics explicitly, a minor structural missed opportunity.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 2 undocumented parameters, the description is thin on what an agent experiences when calling it: no hint of the response shape, no pagination model, no differentiation from search_decp, and no caveat that it hits an external network service. A single sentence covering 'what this searches' is a weak floor for a tool an agent must invoke correctly.

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. It partially does by offering valid query examples for the query parameter, but it never documents the query format/syntax (e.g., free text vs. keywords) nor does it explain page_size at all. page_size's role as a pagination control is left entirely to name-inference, and its max of 50 lives only in 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Search'), names a clear resource ('data.gouv.fr'), and scopes the domain tightly (public-procurement datasets). The concrete examples (DECP, BOAMP, concessions, buyers, PLACE) make the search target tangible. It falls short of a 5 only because it doesn't explicitly contrast with the closely named sibling search_decp, leaving the agent to infer the dataset-vs-record distinction.

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?

Provides no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool instead of its four siblings. With french_public_procurement_search_decp in the sibling list, the boundary between 'search datasets' and 'search DECP records' is non-obvious and never addressed. No conditions, no exclusions, no alternatives are mentioned anywhere.

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