search-gov-data-tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses the return format and the cost/latency profile ('no network call, no run, nothing charged'), which the annotations do not express.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return value, then routing and cost. Every clause earns its place; no restatement of the tool name or padding.

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?

No output schema, but the description states what is returned (matching names with descriptions), and annotations carry the safety profile. For a two-parameter discovery search, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds example query values ('wetlands', 'FDIC', 'flood', 'drone airspace') that concretely illustrate what the query string may contain, marginally exceeding the schema's generic wording.

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 ('Search the full catalog of 123 US government data tools') with the exact match dimensions (keyword, agency, topic) and the return shape ('matching tool names with descriptions'). It also positions itself against the sibling tools by scope, so an agent can tell it apart from run-gov-data-tool and the dedicated screeners.

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'Use this first when the task is not covered by one of the dedicated tools above.' This names the alternative class and the condition that selects this tool. It stops short of naming the natural next step (describe-gov-data-tool / run-gov-data-tool), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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