search_datanexus_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as reducing context load from 40000 to 800 tokens and the open-world hint (no side effects confirmed). It also explains the tool's output (tool names and parameter hints) and provides fallback instructions. No contradictions with annotations.

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 relatively concise at about 120 words and well-structured: it begins with purpose, then parameter details, followed by usage instructions and fallback guidance. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, some parameter descriptions could be trimmed without losing clarity, preventing a perfect score.

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 the tool's complexity (2 parameters, many siblings, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, when not to use, parameter explanations, expected output, and error handling (feedback). It also mentions that the tool reduces context load, which is a key operational detail. No gaps are apparent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds semantic value by explaining the query parameter's purpose ('Plain English description of your task, e.g. ...') and the domain parameter's restriction to specific sub-servers. It also contextualizes them within the usage flow (e.g., reducing context load). While baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, the description's extra guidance warrants a 4.

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 tool's purpose: 'Find the right DataNexus tool by describing your task in plain English.' It specifies it is read-only and has no side effects, and distinguishes it from siblings by instructing to call it before other tools and mentioning alternatives like validate_tool_output.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this before any other DataNexus tool to reduce context load' and 'Do not call this recursively or to validate results — use validate_tool_output for that.' It also directs to report_feedback if the tool's response does not serve the user's need, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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