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. It adds one useful behavioral fact—that an empty query yields a curated list of intracortical datasets—which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how limit affects results, or what format the returned datasets take.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the empty-query detail earns its place because it is a meaningful behavioral clarification.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema the description should hint at what a typical search returns. It clarifies only the empty-query case, not the behavior of non-empty queries or the role of limit. For an agent embedded in a workflow with many related tools, this is adequate but not complete.

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 description must compensate for both parameters. It partially explains query by describing the empty-query behavior, but it says nothing about the limit parameter beyond the default value already in the schema. This leaves a significant semantic gap.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('DANDI Archive datasets'). It also adds a distinctive behavior for empty queries, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like list_dataset_files that deal with files rather than datasets.

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 the tool (searching for datasets) and even gives a usage hint for the empty query case. However, it never mentions any sibling tools or exclusions, so an agent receives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_dataset_files or other alternatives.

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