Fetch a list of JAXA Earth observation datasets, including ALOS, GSMaP, and GCOM, without authentication. Use to browse available datasets and set a result limit.
JAXA Earth の地球観測データセット（ALOS/GSMaP/GCOM等）一覧を返す（認証不要）。
例:「JAXAの地球観測データ」「GSMaP降雨データセット」
content に表示用サマリ、structuredContent に JSON を返す。
Args:
limit: 返すデータセット件数（既定 30、最大 100）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.25.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: 認証不要 (no authentication required) and the return shape (content holds a display summary, structuredContent holds JSON). It does not mention rate limits or pagination behavior for large result sets, so it stops short of full disclosure.
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?
Very compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then example queries, then the return contract, then the single argument. Every line earns its place with no repetition.
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 single-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, auth, return channels, and the argument's range. The main missing piece is how it relates to the sibling jaxa_dataset_search.
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 0% (the schema documents only the default of 30), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains limit is the number of datasets returned, with a default of 30 and a maximum of 100. The max value is information the schema entirely lacks.
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+resource (returns a list of JAXA Earth observation datasets) and names concrete examples (ALOS/GSMaP/GCOM), which makes the scope unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling jaxa_dataset_search, which an agent must choose between.
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 sample queries (「JAXAの地球観測データ」「GSMaP降雨データセット」) imply when the tool is appropriate, giving implied usage guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this list tool versus the sibling jaxa_dataset_search, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.