jaxa_dataset_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: authentication is not required. It says nothing about result ordering, relevance ranking, or what a dataset record contains, which is the main behavioral gap 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then examples, then a compact Args block; nearly every line earns its place. Minor redundancy: the query example list appears once in the body examples and again under Args.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for invocation. What is missing is any indication of return shape (dataset IDs, titles, metadata) and sibling differentiation, which matters given the very large family of dataset-search tools listed.

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 does: it gives representative query terms (GSMaP, ALOS, GCOM, precip, AW3D) and adds the maximum of 100 for limit, which the schema does not state. Only the query matching semantics (substring vs. full-text) remain undocumented.

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: keyword search over JAXA Earth datasets, reinforced by three concrete example queries. It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'jaxa_datasets', which an agent could plausibly choose instead.

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?

Usage is only implied through the example queries; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over jaxa_datasets, copernicus_search, or the other provider-specific search siblings. The '(認証不要)' note helps but is a property, not a routing rule.

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