jaxa_datasets

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no authentication is required and that results are capped (default 30, max 100), but says nothing about the shape of returned records, ordering, or whether the full catalog is truncated at 100.

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, followed by example queries, then the Args block — no filler. The example-query line is slightly unusual but earns its place as a routing cue for a Japanese-language catalog.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, auth status, and result bounds adequately. The material gap is the absence of any differentiation from jaxa_dataset_search, leaving the agent unable to choose between them from the description alone.

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% and the schema only declares a bare default of 30, so the description genuinely adds value by supplying both the default and the undocumented maximum of 100. That is the key semantic an agent needs to size the request correctly.

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 ('returns a list of JAXA Earth observation datasets') and enumerates representative families (ALOS/GSMaP/GCOM), so the agent knows what it will get. It does not, however, distinguish this listing tool from the sibling jaxa_dataset_search, which is the one comparison an agent most needs.

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 Japanese example queries ('JAXAの地球観測データ', 'GSMaP降雨データセット') imply when this tool fits, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no routing to jaxa_dataset_search or the other collection-listing siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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