opendatasoft_universal_search_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says it searches a catalog; it does not mention pagination, limit behavior, return format, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a severe gap. The description is essentially a one-line purpose statement with zero behavioral information.

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, succinct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Search any OpenDataSoft Explore v2.1 catalog') and is appropriately brief for a tool with a simple purpose. However, it is so truncated that it lacks structural detail, so it earns a 4 for conciseness rather than a 5.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the search returns (e.g., dataset summaries, metadata), how results are ordered, or any constraints beyond what the schema specifies. An agent would not know what to expect from the response or how to interpret results. This is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a complex list of catalog entries.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions: 'query' and 'portal_url'; 'limit' has no description but has default/min/max). The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. With coverage above 50%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not augment or clarify parameter semantics further.

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: to search any OpenDataSoft Explore v2.1 catalog. The verb is specific ('Search') and the resource is a catalog, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that target sources, datasets, or records (e.g., opendatasoft_universal_inspect_dataset, opendatasoft_universal_query_records). However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 implies the tool is for searching a catalog but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It gives a clear context (search a catalog) but lacks any exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools. This qualifies as 'implied usage' with no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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