outremer_search_data_gouv

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 phrase 'official public API' mildly implies a free, authentication-free endpoint, which is useful context. However, there's no mention of pagination behavior, rate limits, error handling, or what the default query behavior is when no parameters are supplied.

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 with zero wasted words. The key action (search) and resource (datasets on data.gouv.fr) are conveyed immediately with no fluff.

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 relatively simple search tool with 2 optional parameters, minimal documentation might be acceptable. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and an ambiguously-scoped sibling (outremer_search_territory_datasets), the description leaves important gaps—what does an empty query return, how does pagination work, what does the response look like? These are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% (both query and page_size are documented with descriptions). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but per the rubric baseline, when schema coverage exceeds 80%, a score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Search public datasets on data.gouv.fr' is specific and understandable. However, it fails to differentiate from the similarly-named sibling 'outremer_search_territory_datasets', which could create confusion about which search tool to invoke.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given multiple search-related siblings (outremer_search_territory_datasets, outremer_get_dataset), explicit disambiguation would be highly valuable but is entirely absent. There's no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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