search_gov_data_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the search scope (114 tools), matching dimensions (keyword/agency/topic), and return format ('matching tool names with descriptions'), which covers the core read/search behaviors. It omits edge-case behaviors such as result ordering and empty-result handling, but those are minor gaps for a catalog search tool.

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 two sentences with all content earning its place: the first sentence states action, scope, and examples; the second covers return format and usage triage. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 low-complexity search tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, query examples, return content, and usage context. Minor gaps remain around edge-case behavior (empty results, ordering), but the tool is simple enough that the description is nearly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so 'query' and 'limit' are fully documented in the structured schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds useful query examples and the agency/topic framing, but it does not add new semantic facts about the parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Search the full catalog of 114 US government data tools') and clarifies the search dimensions (keyword, agency, topic) with concrete examples like 'wetlands' and 'FDIC'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by positioning itself as the general fallback: 'Use this first when the task is not covered by one of the dedicated tools above.'

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this first when the task is not covered by one of the dedicated tools above.' This simultaneously identifies the alternative (the dedicated sibling tools) and implies the when-not-to-use condition (when a dedicated tool covers the task), providing clear triage.

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