env_bafu_datasets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are lists with title/description/URLs, pagination via offset/rows, and zero-result handling (match_type 'none'). This supplements the safety profile without contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear first line, details, and sections for use_case and important_notes. It is concise enough while providing necessary context, though the <use_case> and <important_notes> could be integrated more succinctly.

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 search function and existing annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, pagination, and error handling. The return type is mentioned ('Liste...'), and output schema exists (though not shown). Missing details like sorting are acceptable for this complexity level.

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?

The input schema provides thorough descriptions for rows, query, and offset (e.g., range, default, example query). The description adds operational semantics beyond the schema: pagination guidance and advice to try broader terms on zero results. This enhances parameter understanding.

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 searches BAFU datasets on opendata.swiss, specifies topics (Luft, Wasser, etc.), and mentions results contain titles, descriptions, and download URLs. It also distinguishes from sibling tool env_bafu_dataset_detail via the <use_case> tag, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 <use_case> provides clear context for when to use this tool (initial search) and directs to env_bafu_dataset_detail for details. The <important_notes> offers guidance on pagination and handling zero results (try broader terms). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternative tools.

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