Search the FP Standard and FLUXNET variable dictionaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: units vary by resolution (NEE in umol m-2 s-1 at HH vs gC m-2 d-1 at DD) and each result carries per-resolution units plus SUBSET membership — non-obvious output traits an agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Two sentences plus a one-line next step; the searchable corpora are front-loaded and the units caveat follows immediately. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present the description needn't detail return values, yet it still summarizes what each result row carries. It omits pagination/default-limit expectations for a 6-param search tool, a minor gap given all params are optional and defaults are in the schema.

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 67%, so the schema carries most parameter definitions. The description adds rationale the schema lacks — why `resolution` matters (units are resolution-dependent) and how the dictionary variants differ (BASE vs ONEFlux v1.3 vs FULLSET/SUBSET) — though `limit`/`offset` paging is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (find) and resource (variable names), and enumerates the exact corpora searched: FP Standard (AmeriFlux BASE) and three FLUXNET dictionaries including ONEFlux v1.3 and FLUXNET2015 FULLSET/SUBSET. The closing pointer to amf_describe_variables makes the boundary with that sibling unambiguous.

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?

States the three search axes (words, category, resolution) and gives an explicit next step: 'call amf_describe_variables on the names', which routes the agent in a two-step workflow. It stops short of naming when NOT to use this tool (e.g., vs amf_search_sites for site lookup), so no exclusion guidance.

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