swiss_statistics_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the result shape is, pagination/limits, or whether the rows parameter controls result count limits. It doesn't describe rate limits or result format, leaving significant behavioral unknowns.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with a domain list appended. No wasted words. However, it's compact to the point of omitting useful behavioral and usage details.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify return value structure and how rows/query behave. It provides neither. It also doesn't help an agent disambiguate from numerous sibling search tools. The description is minimal and leaves too much unspecified for effective tool selection and invocation.

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%: the query parameter has a description with examples ('population', 'unemployment', 'GDP', 'immigration'), which the description partially reinforces. However, the rows parameter (integer, default 10) has no description in either schema or tool description, and the description doesn't explain how the query maps to results or how rows interacts with the search.

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 states it searches Swiss Federal Statistical Office datasets with a domain list (population, economy, education, society). It's clear what resource it targets, but it doesn't specify what the search returns (datasets? records? metadata?) or how it differs from siblings like swiss_health_search_datasets, swiss_energy_search_datasets or swiss_opendata_search_datasets, which appear to be similar 'search datasets' 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?

The description gives a broad topic hint ('Statistical topic') but provides no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. With many sibling 'search' tools, there's no distinction offered between BFS statistics and, say, opendata or health/energy datasets. No exclusions or alternative tool references.

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