search_datasource_types

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the useful default behavior ('Default searches by name only'), but does not disclose the return format, whether results are paginated, or the semantics of 'search' (substring/regex) beyond what the schema already states. It provides some context but leaves 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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the important default. No filler or repetition.

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 search tool with 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient completeness. It communicates the core search capability and default. However, it could be slightly stronger by noting that it returns matching datasource types, but the verb 'search' implicitly covers this.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the default search scope ('Default searches by name only'), which directly explains the search_in parameter's behavior. This goes beyond the raw enum definition, justifying 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 uses a specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource 'datasource types' and specifies the search dimensions 'by name and/or method code'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_datasource_types and get_datasource_type, which serve different lookup purposes.

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 usage via the default behavior 'Default searches by name only', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_datasource_types or get_datasource_type. There is no direct comparison or exclusion, so guidance is only implied.

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