dataproduct_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that only active data products are returned and that the result is a list of summaries, which is useful. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, error behavior, pagination, or what 'basic information' includes, leaving some ambiguity.

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 very concise, with a clear one-sentence summary followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides value, and the format aids quick comprehension.

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 simple single-parameter search tool, the description is mostly complete. It states the purpose, the active-only filter, and the return type. The existence of an output schema likely handles detailed return formats, but the description could note whether pagination or large result sets are handled. Overall, adequate for typical usage.

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 schema provides only type and default for search_term, with no description. The description fills this gap effectively by explaining the parameter's purpose and supporting multiple space-separated terms. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 action (search), the resource (data products), and the scope (active only). It naturally distinguishes from siblings like dataproduct_get or dataproduct_query by focusing on search functionality.

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 when to use it (for searching data products) and notes the active-only restriction, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so guidance is limited to the basic scenario.

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