Search CKAN Groups by Name

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operations. The description adds behavioral details: wildcards are automatically added around the search pattern, and the response format can be markdown or JSON. This provides useful context beyond the 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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, brief explanation, clearly labeled arguments and returns, and a typical workflow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return value (list with dataset counts), and typical workflow. No output schema exists, but the return description is adequate. Annotations provide additional safety context.

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%, with each parameter well-documented (e.g., pattern includes 'wildcards added automatically'). The tool description's 'Args' section largely duplicates schema info, adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 for groups by name pattern, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates itself from sibling tool package_search by noting it's a simpler interface, and provides a typical workflow sequence.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (simpler than package_search, wildcards automatically added) and gives a typical workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond package_search, but the guidance is sufficient for most scenarios.

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