Datamesh Search Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are credential-scoped, and a datasource absent from results may simply be inaccessible rather than nonexistent—an important constraint for interpreting output.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, no wasted preamble. The second sentence is slightly redundant—'either does not exist or is not accessible with these credentials' largely restates 'do not report it as nonexistent'—but the constraint is worth stating once.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers the key interpretive caveat for a search tool. It could go further by noting pagination/limit interaction or pointing to get_datasource_info for single-record lookups, but nothing critical 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 every parameter (bbox, limit, detail, search, time_start, time_end) is already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Oceanum Datamesh catalog for datasets'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like datamesh_get_datasource_info; that routing distinction only appears in the schema's 'detail' parameter, not in the description.

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 accessibility caveat ('catalog search only covers datasources accessible to the credentials used for this request') is genuinely useful usage guidance. But the description never says when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_datasource_info for a single dataset, or when a text/bbox/time filter is the right approach—usage is only implied.

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