swiss_energy_search_datasets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It describes what data is searched but doesn't state what the return format looks like, whether it returns metadata versus actual values, pagination or limit behavior, or the relationship between the 'rows' parameter and result count. For a search tool with zero annotations, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence that packs topic scope and agency attribution. No wasted words. Could potentially add an example invocation pattern, but the current length is appropriate for the information conveyed.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate more. It doesn't explain the return value format, whether this returns raw data or dataset metadata, or any rate/pagination constraints. For a tool that actually retrieves data, the lack of behavioral clarity is a notable gap.

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 50% (query has a description with examples; rows has only default=10 with no description). The description reinforces what types of queries work ('electricity', 'solar', etc. from the query param examples) but doesn't explain what 'rows' controls (max results? page size?). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the query param is well-documented in schema and partially reinforced in description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource scope ('Swiss energy data from SFOE') and lists content areas (electricity production, renewables, consumption, EV charging stations). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific agency (SFOE) and topic domains, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools among the many Swiss-data siblings.

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?

There's no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large sibling set (swiss_grid_energy_data, swiss_hydro_data, swiss_health_search_datasets), it would be valuable to note that this is the general SFOE dataset search while swiss_grid_energy_data and swiss_hydro_data are more specialized. No exclusions or contextual pointers provided.

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