search_datasets

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it delivers the highest-value behavioral fact: columns_field_name vs columns_name, with the consequence spelled out ("silently returns zero rows"). It omits catalog staleness/freshness behavior and what limit does when exceeded, so the operational profile is incomplete but far above baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and closes with the workflow instruction; nearly every clause earns its place. The parenthetical about columns_field_name is deliberately verbose and valuable, though the italics/em-dash framing makes it denser than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description usefully flags the one returned field that causes silent failures, so it is complete where it matters most for a simple two-parameter search. The remaining gap is catalog freshness and result-limit behavior, which an agent would still have to discover.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does define what keyword matches against (name, description, category, tags), which is genuine added meaning, but says nothing about the limit parameter (default 20, max, pagination), leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource ("Search the cached dataset catalog by keyword") and immediately names the indexed fields (name, description, category, tags), which distinguishes it from list_cached_datasets and query without the agent needing to open schemas.

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 routes the agent forward: "Use this to find a dataset, then describe_dataset to get its full schema before querying" names both the alternative and the ordering condition. It stops short of the full sibling set — no guidance on when to prefer list_cached_datasets or when refresh_catalog is needed first.

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