search_datasets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly. It explains the GeoJSON FeatureCollection return format, semantics of source_origin and source_freshness, null behavior for health fields, absence of per-result detail requests, and exclusion of credentials. This is far beyond a generic search-tool description.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent paragraphs are organized by result format, trust metadata caveats, and parameter details. The description is longer than strictly necessary for three parameters, but the extra detail on freshness and null fields is substantive and earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers inputs, output shape, property enums, null semantics, and even the follow-up tool for richer trust metadata. An agent can invoke and interpret results correctly without guessing.

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 0%, so the Args block is the sole parameter documentation. It provides search text semantics, a range and default for limit (1-200, default 10), and offset's basic purpose. The offset explanation is terse and could clarify paging interaction with limit, but the description does compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the GeoLens catalog for datasets by free text.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_features, list_maps, and get_map. The additional note about using the feature id as dataset_id for other tools reinforces its role in the catalog workflow.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: free-text search across catalog metadata, with semantic ranking mentioned. It also directs the agent to call get_dataset_schema when trust metadata is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast search_datasets with alternatives like query or list_maps, so it lacks full when-not-to-use guidance.

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