find_dataset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does NOT search itself and returns instructions instead. It also clarifies the delegation to OpenAIRE. This is transparent about its behavior and limitations, though it could mention any side effects or prerequisites (none apparent).

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 multi-sentence but each sentence adds value: stating purpose, clarifying the handoff, and providing behavioral instructions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains focused. Slightly verbose with the 'Do not answer' part, but still concise enough.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, how to handle the user request, and even mentions DOI citation. No output schema exists, but the description covers the necessary context for an agent to act correctly.

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?

The description does not explain the 'topic' parameter at all. The schema provides no description either, and coverage is 0%. The parameter is optional with a default, but the description adds no meaning regarding how it is used or whether it matters. This is a clear gap.

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 role: it provides instructions for finding a citable dataset, not the actual search. It explicitly says 'Where to find a DATASET' and differentiates from the OpenAIRE MCP. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_independent_software.

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?

It explicitly says when to call it: 'Call this when the user asks the Radar to find data/a dataset'. It also mentions the alternative (OpenAIRE MCP) and provides a directive: 'Do not answer I can't search datasets — hand off to the OpenAIRE MCP'. This is excellent guidance.

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