search_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful scope information (which three locations are searched) and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about matching semantics (case sensitivity, wildcards), result truncation against the default limit of 100, or performance implications.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded and the usage hint second. Nothing to trim.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, scope, and a usage cue adequately for a simple read tool, with only matching semantics left implicit.

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 100%, so all three parameters (name substring, limit, workspaces) are already documented. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (datasets by name) plus the search scope (geodatabase, home folder, folder connections). This clearly separates it from the listing tools, though it does not explicitly name the siblings it replaces such as list_workspace_contents or describe_dataset.

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 quickest way to locate data before adding it" implies the usage context (locate then add, e.g. before add_layer), but no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given. Minimum viable.

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