datos_search_datasets

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, and open-world, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it searches for 'publicados' (published) datasets, which provides useful context about scope. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior that would be valuable beyond the 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 extremely concise - a single Spanish sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward search tool.

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 search tool with good annotations (read-only, non-destructive, open-world) and full parameter documentation, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It doesn't explain the return format beyond listing fields, and with no output schema, the agent must infer the structure. The description covers the basics but lacks depth about result format, quality, or limitations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions, examples, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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: searching for datasets published by INE on datos.gob.cl and returning specific fields (title, name, number of resources). It uses a specific verb ('Busca') and identifies the resource ('datasets'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'datos_get_dataset' or 'datos_query_resource' which might have overlapping 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'datos_get_dataset' and 'datos_query_resource' that likely interact with the same data source, the agent receives no help in choosing between them. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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