Seattle Data Search Datasets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the queryability filter that gates downstream usability of results, and expected latency ('Typically 1-3 s'). Pagination/cursor behavior is left to the schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then routing, then the constraint, then a concrete example and latency. Every line carries information; slight compression leaves terms like 'queryability' implicit relative to the schema's 'queryable' phrasing.

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, so return shape and cursor handling need not be restated. Given the tool's low complexity (no required params, all-optional filters), purpose, routing, the queryability gate, an example and latency are sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% with defaults and enum meanings spelled out for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The single example {"query": "fire 911"} illustrates query matching but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema's own 'Words to match' wording.

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 ('Find Seattle datasets') plus the search dimension ('by topic'), so an agent knows it is a search tool rather than a fetch/describe tool. The routing line 'Call first when you lack a dataset id' further separates it from the describe/query siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit call condition ('Call first when you lack a dataset id') and a downstream constraint ('Only results with queryability "supported" can be described or queried'), which tells the agent what is usable next. It stops short of naming the alternative tool by name or stating when not to use this one, so it is strong but not fully explicit.

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