Search EDI data packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: only the newest revision of each package is returned, and generated bulk scopes (~36k records) are excluded unless include_bulk=true. It does not cover pagination/result-count limits, but the dedup and exclusion semantics are genuinely useful.

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?

Front-loaded with what is searchable, then return shape, then the bulk caveat, then the next-step call. It is dense but well ordered; the return-field enumeration slightly duplicates the output schema but costs little.

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 10 parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations present, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: bulk exclusion, newest-revision dedup, and explicit follow-up tools.

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% and the per-parameter descriptions already carry the semantics (bbox ordering, sort enum nuances, start/end_year overlap logic). The description's parameter list is summary-level restatement rather than added meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Search) and resource (EDI/LTER data packages) and immediately enumerates the facets it searches over, so it is unmistakably distinct from the edi_get_* and edi_list_* siblings.

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?

It gives clear context (filter by scope, author, temporal overlap, bbox; sort; paginate) and routes the agent forward with 'Next: call edi_get_package or edi_get_metadata with a packageId', plus points to edi_list_scopes for scope resolution. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the alternative routing is well covered.

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