search_datasf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'Returns dataset IDs, names, and descriptions,' which gives some output context, but lacks details about permissions (though implied as public), rate limits, error handling, or pagination. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, efficiently stating the tool's purpose and return values. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. It could be slightly improved by structuring usage guidance, but it's well-sized for its content.

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 moderate complexity (search with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks details on behavioral traits, sibling differentiation, and error cases. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in 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 the schema fully documents both parameters ('query' and 'limit'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain search syntax, result ordering, or how 'limit' interacts with defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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: 'Search for public datasets in San Francisco's open data portal by keywords.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('public datasets'), and scope ('San Francisco's open data portal'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_datasf' or 'query_datasf', which prevents a perfect score.

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 'list_datasf' and 'query_datasf' available, there's no indication of when this search function is appropriate versus listing or querying datasets. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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