eurostat_search_datasets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure load. It states that the tool searches by keyword and returns a list of dicts with code, title, and last_update fields, which clarifies the basic outcome. However, it does not disclose edge behaviors such as matching rules, pagination, errors, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, then provides an efficient Args/Returns structure. Every line adds information, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema data beyond what is necessary.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description supplies enough operational detail: purpose, parameter meanings, and return shape, while the optional limit default is in the schema. It lacks only the sibling-routing context that would make selection fully unambiguous, but nothing needed to invoke the tool is missing.

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 0%, yet the description's Args section fully compensates by defining query as 'Search keyword' and limit as 'Maximum number of results to return.' Both parameters receive meaningful semantics beyond the bare type/default information in the schema.

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 opens with 'Search Eurostat datasets by keyword,' naming a specific verb and resource, which makes the core purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like eurostat_get_dataset_structure or eurostat_get_data, though the search-versus-retrieval distinction is implied by the wording.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as eurostat_get_data, eurostat_get_ranking, or eurostat_get_dataset_structure. The description only implies use for keyword-based dataset discovery and provides no exclusions or selection criteria.

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