cinii_search_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds provenance and the fact that records are typed from their own dc:type, but 'Returns the unified envelope' is unexplained and pagination/sort caveats are 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?

Verb and resource are front-loaded in the first clause, and the following sentences add real scope information rather than filler. The KAKEN date note is a slightly odd detail but is genuinely informative about coverage.

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?

Output shape is covered by an output schema and safety by annotations, so the description's job is scope — which sources are indexed and how records are typed — and it does that. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 contributes nothing about the filters (data_source, dataset_format, has_fulltext, sort, paging), but the nested schema carries rich per-field descriptions for most of them, including the dataSourceType and datasetFormat mappings. With the schema doing the work, this sits at the baseline 3.

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 CiNii Research for research data (datasets)'), which is enough to separate it from the articles, books, dissertations and KAKEN siblings by resource type. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with cinii_search_all, which overlaps in coverage.

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?

Usage is implied only: the reader can infer 'use this when you want datasets', and the source list (DataCite, JDCAT, IRDB, KAKEN) narrows expectations. There is no explicit when-not-to-use, and no statement about whether cinii_search_all also returns these records.

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