search_datasets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two genuinely non-obvious behaviors: results flag whether a source pack documents them, and results do not carry quality/review/reliability/publication status. However, it omits return shape, pagination behavior, auth requirements, and rate limits, leaving meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then scoping, then result semantics. No repetition of the name or title and no filler; the status caveat is a single clause that carries real information.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, domain scoping, and result caveats adequately. The main residual gap is that the return structure beyond the source-pack flag is unexplained, and no alternative-tool routing is offered.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate — and it does so for the one genuinely ambiguous parameter by explaining that an empty domain searches every portal while a hostname scopes to one. search_term and limit (1-50, default 10) are self-evident, and reporter_question is well documented in the schema itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the Socrata catalog for datasets') and clarifies scope (all portals vs one). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like list_source_packs and describe_dataset, but never names them explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 domain guidance ('Leave domain empty to search every portal, or give a portal hostname') is scoping help, not when-to-use guidance. The closing caveat about results lacking quality/review/reliability/publication status usefully signals a limitation, but the description never says when to prefer describe_dataset or query_dataset instead.

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