huggingface_search_dataset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation hits a public official repository and returns context plus direct links with official citations, which is useful return-context. It stops short of describing rate limits, authentication, or pagination behavior, so it adds value but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and the resource. No redundancy or filler. It could ideally split into a purpose statement plus a usage hint, but the current form is tight.

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 two-parameter, read-only retrieval tool whose annotations cover safety and whose schema is fully documented, the description is adequate. It also signals the return content (context, direct links, official citations) despite having no output schema. It falls short of explaining how this source differs from the numerous sibling search tools, which is the key missing 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 100%, so both query and limit are fully documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema already provides, so no additional credit is warranted.

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?

States a specific verb (Consulta) and resource (Hugging Face Datasets Hub, repo pablobenavidesj/doctrina-jurisprudencia-chile), making the target unambiguous. It even names the exact dataset, which is more precise than a generic 'search docs' tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling corpus search tools such as doctrina_search or pjud_search_jurisprudencia, so an agent cannot tell when this source is preferable.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. Given the large family of sibling search tools (doctrina_search, busqueda_universal, pjud_search_jurisprudencia), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap. The only implied usage is 'search this dataset'.

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