french_transport_data_search_data_gouv

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only search over an external source and scopes the content to mobility datasets, which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or any network/auth considerations, so the behavioral profile is only partially disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence states the action, target, and relevant examples with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter search tool.

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 two obvious parameters, the description is minimally adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gaps are the lack of detail about the output shape and how this tool relates to the sibling search_datasets tool, but neither is catastrophic given the simplicity of the operation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain page_size or map query beyond the example dataset types. That said, the parameter names, defaults, and constraints make both query and page_size reasonably self-evident, and the examples give concrete meaning to the query parameter. This partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies a specific action ('Search'), a target resource ('data.gouv.fr'), and a domain ('mobility datasets') with concrete examples such as GTFS, NeTEx, SIRI, stops, and real-time feeds. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling search_datasets tool, leaving some ambiguity about which search tool to prefer.

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 clear context for when to call this tool: when searching for French mobility/transport datasets on data.gouv.fr. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but it provides enough context for an agent to infer the intended use case and no exclusions are stated.

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