list_datasets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it paginates correctly, covers the complete register (~2000 datasets), and includes records missed by the search index. This enriches transparency beyond annotations, though it could mention potential latency or consistency.

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 description is concise and well-structured, starting with the primary purpose, then differentiation from a sibling, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essentials: purpose, differentiation, parameter meanings, and key behavioral traits (pagination, coverage). However, it omits details like sorting order or timeout behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for parameter semantics. It provides meaningful descriptions for all parameters: `publisher_identifier` from `list_publishers`, `access_rights` examples, `language` values, and pagination details. This compensates well, but lacks specifics on default values (already in schema) or format constraints.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists registered datasets with optional filtering by publisher. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling `search_catalog` by highlighting its correct pagination and complete register coverage, providing a specific verb+resource differentiation.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for complete register and correct pagination) and contrasts with `search_catalog` as an alternative. It also documents parameter examples like `publisher_identifier` from `list_publishers` and `access_rights` values, offering clear context for usage.

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