mayotte_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 does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if it accesses an external API (data.gouv.fr) with potential rate limits, what the response format looks like, or any side effects. The description merely states the action without revealing behavioral traits, leaving the agent in the dark about expected 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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains zero filler words. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource, scope, and optional topic. However, it does not explain the return format (e.g., list of datasets with metadata), nor does it clarify what 'Mayotte-specific' filtering entails or elaborate on pagination beyond the schema. Given that no output schema exists and sibling tools could cause ambiguity, more context would improve completeness.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters: 'topic' with examples and 'page_size' with default and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, merely restating that it 'optionally adds a topic'. Since the schema fully documents parameter semantics, this meets the baseline for this dimension.

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 tool's purpose: searching data.gouv.fr for Mayotte-specific datasets. It uses a specific verb ('search') and specifies the resource ('data.gouv.fr') and scope ('Mayotte-specific'). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'mayotte_search_data_gouv', which likely has a similar function, so it misses the opportunity to distinguish its unique role.

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 its sibling 'mayotte_search_data_gouv' or other related tools. The description only says it optionally adds a topic, giving no context about preconditions, exclusions, or alternative usage scenarios. This leaves the agent without direction on selecting this tool for the right task.

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