Search by Research Facility

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry the burden of behavioral traits. It does not disclose any side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or behavior when source is invalid. It only lists example facilities without confirming they are exhaustive.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loads the action, with no redundant 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?

Given the tool has two simple parameters and an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on valid source values and limit usage. It would benefit from clarifying the exact input format for source.

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 description adds partial meaning by listing example facility codes for the source parameter, but does not clarify if these are the only valid values or explain the limit parameter. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but is insufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds samples and datasets from specific DOE research facilities, listing examples (EMSL, ESS-DIVE, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like search_by_name and bbox_search by focusing on source/facility.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used when the user knows the facility name or that other tools handle different criteria.

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