Search CKAN Organizations by Name

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: wildcards are automatically added around the pattern, and the return value is summarized as a 'list of matching organizations with dataset counts.'

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 an opening summary, Args section, Returns section, examples, and workflow. Each section serves a purpose, though the Args section partially repeats schema information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and informative annotations, the description is complete: it states return shape, gives realistic examples, clarifies wildcard behavior, and places the tool in a workflow. There is no output schema, so the explicit Returns line is especially valuable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context by explaining that wildcards are automatically added around the pattern and by showing concrete example values for server_url and pattern. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and description fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for organizations by name pattern.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from package_search as 'a simpler interface,' so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools at a glance.

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?

It clearly frames this tool as the simpler alternative to package_search for finding organizations and gives a typical downstream workflow (search → show → package_search). It does not explicitly list exclusions or when to prefer organization_list, but the context is strong enough for correct routing.

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