search_datasets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that this is a read-only search operation and outlines the return fields, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like default domain scope, result limits, or rate limiting, leaving some ambiguity about execution expectations.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and has no wasted words. The second sentence adds essential workflow guidance without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, return fields, and next steps, but falls short on parameter semantics and lacks any caveats about pagination, default domain, or result size. While an output schema exists, the absence of parameter descriptions and annotations makes the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'keyword' which maps to the 'query' parameter, but omits 'limit' and 'domain' entirely. The agent cannot infer the meaning or defaults of these parameters from the description, creating a significant 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 function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Socrata portal's catalog'), and explains what it returns (dataset ids, names, descriptions). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly linking the returned id to get_schema/query_dataset, establishing its role as the entry point.

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 description provides workflow context by stating 'Use the returned id with get_schema/query_dataset', which implies when to use this tool and what to do next. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative search strategies, leaving a small gap in exclusion guidance.

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