Search Charlotte open datasets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: the catalog's approximate size and the fact that results are meant to be handed off via layer_url to three downstream tools. It does not discuss result counts or pagination behavior, but the presence of an output schema reduces that burden.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core action and scope come first, then the fallback role and the handoff workflow. Every clause 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 a rich annotation set, a 100%-documented 2-parameter schema, and an existing output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: why this tool exists alongside the purpose-built ones and how its results are consumed downstream. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is absent.

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 100%, so both parameters (query, limit) are fully documented in the schema, including keyword examples and the 1-25 bound on limit. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-semantics detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (search) and resource (Charlotte Open Data Portal catalog), plus concrete scope (~380 datasets) and mechanism (by keyword). It is clearly distinguishable from the purpose-built siblings like get_crime_near or get_city_budget, which it explicitly positions itself against.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('find data the purpose-built tools don't cover') and names the follow-up alternatives (describe_dataset, query_dataset, summarize_dataset) along with the exact field (layer_url) that bridges them. This is a complete routing instruction with no inference required.

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