wsl_search

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context: empty results return related tags as suggestions, and 'OR' is a stop word in Solr syntax. No contradiction with annotations.

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 separate sections for use case, important notes, and example. Every sentence is informative, no fluff, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Excellent balance of detail and brevity.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, constraints, and examples. It mentions empty result fallback and response format options. However, it does not describe the structure of returned results (e.g., fields in output), which would be helpful for an agent. Given the schema covers input well and annotations provide safety, it's still quite complete.

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 itself contains detailed descriptions for all subfields (query, domain, organization, bbox, limit, offset, response_format), providing high coverage. The tool description only gives a high-level summary of the filters, adding minimal extra value beyond the schema. The constraint that at least one filter must be set is already in the schema.

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 performs a unified search in the WSL EnviDat catalog, combining keyword, curated research domain, organization, and bounding box. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the general search across all EnviDat, while siblings like wsl_get_avalanche_data are more specific.

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 includes a <use_case> section listing specific scenarios (e.g., Swiss environmental research, climate impact research) and <important_notes> requiring at least one filter and explaining Solr syntax and empty result behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools.

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