csa_dataset_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral load; it does disclose the auth-free nature, the default of 10, the hard cap of 20, and the empty-query fallback. It is silent on result shape, pagination beyond the cap, and error behavior for invalid or over-limit inputs, which matters for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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, the no-auth constraint, and concrete example queries come first, followed by a tight per-argument listing. Every line carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place an agent can learn what a result looks like — yet it never describes the returned dataset entries (titles, IDs, URLs) or how to go from a result to a download. For a simple two-parameter search tool this is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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, and it largely does: query is explained with example terms plus the omit-to-get-leading-results behavior, and limit gets both a default and a maximum (20) that the schema does not state. Missing only matching semantics (substring vs. keyword) and what happens if limit exceeds 20.

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 (search) and resource (datasets) plus the exact source system (CSA / Canadian Space Agency open data portal), which cleanly separates it from the many sibling agency searches (jaxa_dataset_search, dlr_search, inpe_search, copernicus_search). An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete query examples ('radarsat', 'space', 'earth observation') and states that omitting the query returns leading datasets and that no auth is needed, so the calling context is clear. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a different sibling (e.g. copernicus_search for EU data) or note any exclusions.

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