search_datasets

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that the search spans all 53 datasets and 181 endpoints and matches against specific metadata fields (name, table name, endpoint path, description). This goes beyond the generic annotation, though return format and rate limits are not mentioned.

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?

The description is appropriately concise: two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and precise scope details in the second. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains what is searched and the scope, but does not clarify what the response contains (e.g., dataset names, endpoint paths, or full metadata). This missing return-value detail leaves a moderate gap, though the simple nature and good schema description partially compensate.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including a description and examples. The description's 'by keyword' adds no additional semantic value over the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource: 'Treasury Fiscal Data datasets and endpoints'. It further specifies the scope (all 53 datasets, 181 endpoints) and the searchable fields (name, table name, endpoint path, description), distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_fiscal_data or list_datasets.

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 implies usage for discovering relevant datasets/endpoints by keyword, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify that actual data values should be fetched with query_fiscal_data, or that list_datasets provides an unfiltered listing.

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