oecd_search_datasets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool returns a list of dicts with code and title fields and that limit caps the result count. However, it does not mention behavior like ordering, pagination, error handling, or confirm that the operation is read-only.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by explicit Args and Returns sections. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 with an output schema, the description is sufficient for correct invocation: it defines both inputs and the result shape. It lacks routing context relative to sibling tools, but that is already captured under usage guidelines.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides the only meaning for both parameters: 'query' is a search keyword and 'limit' is the maximum number of results. This adds genuinely useful semantics beyond the bare parameter names and types.

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 operation: 'Search OECD datasets by keyword.' The OECD scope clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like eurostat_search_datasets and worldbank_search_indicators, and the returns section confirms it produces dataset metadata.

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_search_datasets or oecd_get_data. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, so an agent gets little help routing between related tools.

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