Search DOE geothermal datasets (GDR)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it explains that terms are ANDed, that results return titles/DOIs/dates/links, and even warns about a false-match case ('cape station' also matching Cape Grim air station). It does not mention pagination, sorting, or auth/rate limits, but the disclosed search semantics are materially useful.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, content types, key corpus examples, a query ambiguity warning, AND semantics, and return fields. It is front-loaded with the resource name and keeps all guidance relevant without repetition or filler.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is indexed, how to phrase queries, what results look like, and notable edge cases. Minor gaps such as row-count behavior and pagination are not likely to prevent an agent from calling the tool successfully.

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 coverage is 50%: the query parameter has examples, but rows has only schema constraints with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining AND semantics and giving realistic query patterns, which adds meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't elaborate on rows behavior, but the schema's default/min/max plus the name make it reasonably self-evident.

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 a specific verb and resource: searching U.S. DOE-funded geothermal datasets via OSTI Data Explorer/GDR. It names the content types (well logs, stimulation data, microseismic) and cites concrete projects like Fervo Cape Station and Utah FORGE, which clearly separates it from sibling tools such as search_wells or search_gem_projects.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it is the source for GDR/Fervo/FORGE and international geothermal datasets, and it offers concrete query examples such as 'cape egs' or 'fervo'. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives or name when_not scenarios, but the domain-specific examples and scope make the intended use fairly unambiguous.

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