swiss_opendata_search_datasets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the useful facts that there are 14,000+ datasets and that no auth is required, which is genuinely helpful context. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, result limit behavior, what the response structure looks like, or rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral disclosure would be expected.

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?

Two short, information-dense sentences with zero waste. Every word earns its place — purpose, scope, scale, and auth requirement are all conveyed efficiently. Front-loaded with the core function.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It doesn't explain return format, result ordering, or default behavior of rows. However, search tools are relatively straightforward, and the siblings suggest this is part of a larger family where domain-specific search tools exist. It's adequate but not rich.

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 50% (query and organization have descriptions, rows and format do not). The description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With 50% coverage, the description could compensate for the undocumented rows/format parameters but does not. Baseline 3 is appropriate since half the parameters are documented in schema.

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 what the tool does: 'Search the opendata.swiss catalog — 14,000+ official Swiss government datasets.' The verb (Search) plus resource (opendata.swiss catalog) is specific and clear. Among siblings there are multiple *_search_datasets tools (health, energy, statistics), so it somewhat differentiates by naming the opendata.swiss catalog explicitly, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from those sibling search tools.

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?

It states 'No auth required' which is useful setup context and implies it can be used freely without API key preparation. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs the domain-specific search tools (swiss_health_search_datasets, swiss_energy_search_datasets, swiss_statistics_search) or provide concrete exclusion guidance. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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