search_datasets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a search operation (implied read-only), returns formatted text with specific metadata fields, and mentions pagination behavior (defaults and max). However, it doesn't cover error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful for a public API tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage context, then parameter details, then return format. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff. The Args/Returns sections are clear but could be integrated more seamlessly.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining the tool's role, parameters, and output. However, with an output schema present (true), the description redundantly explains return values ('Formatted text with dataset information...'), which isn't necessary. It also lacks error handling or example context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds valuable semantics: 'query' searches in title, description, tags; 'page' and 'page_size' have defaults and a max value (100). This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or validation rules.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Search for datasets on data.gouv.fr by keywords') and resource ('datasets'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_dataset_info (detailed info) and list_dataset_resources (file listing). It explicitly mentions the platform (data.gouv.fr) and search scope.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'This is typically the first step in exploring data.gouv.fr' and 'After finding relevant datasets, use get_dataset_info to get more details, or list_dataset_resources to see what files are available.' It clearly positions this tool as the entry point and names specific alternatives for follow-up actions.

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