search_by_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Find all datasets...' and 'Returns: Same shape as search_datasets()', with no mention of read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then provides a helpful list of common tags and a clear reference to output shape. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has 3 parameters, an output schema (referenced), and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and references the output shape, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only, rate limits) and usage guidance. The common tags list adds some completeness, but overall it could do more to fully equip an agent.

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 input schema already covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by listing common tags (e.g., 'statistika', 'budžet') which provides practical examples for the 'tags' parameter. It also clarifies the return format by referencing 'search_datasets()', helping users anticipate output structure.

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 states it finds datasets by tags (specific verb 'Find' and resource 'datasets tagged'), and adds 'regardless of publisher' which hints at a differentiating scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'search_datasets' or 'intelligent_search', leaving room for ambiguity. The common tags list aids understanding but does not fully distinguish the tool's purpose.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer tag-based search over full-text search (search_datasets) or other discovery tools. Users must infer usage from the tool's name and description alone.

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