search_datasets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Search/list' which strongly implies a read-only operation, and it states the return fields. However, it does not explicitly declare that the operation is non-destructive or that it does not modify data. It also does not mention any rate limits, permissions, or error behavior. The description is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search/list datasets'), then specifies supported search modes and return fields. There is no redundant or filler content; every clause contributes useful information.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, supported parameters (q and where), and return fields. It does not explicitly explain pagination via limit/offset or ordering via orderBy, but those are defined in the schema. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns, though it could add a note about pagination behavior.

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 60%: q, where, and orderBy have descriptions; limit and offset only have defaults. The description adds context for q and where (full-text search and ODSQL boolean filter), and clarifies that they can be used together ('and/or'). It does not mention limit or offset, and does not fully compensate for the missing descriptions. The added value over the schema is moderate.

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 verb 'search/list' and the resource 'datasets in the City of Vancouver Open Data Portal catalog'. It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The focus on searching/listing datasets distinguishes it from siblings like get_dataset (single dataset retrieval), query_records (records within a dataset), get_facets, and export_dataset.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to search or list datasets, optionally using full-text search or an ODSQL filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear. It does not say 'use this instead of get_dataset', but the distinction is evident from the description's scope.

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