find_data_for_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful output context (each result carries a why_relevant explanation tuned to the task), but says nothing about ranking method, result count, pagination, or budget interplay beyond the schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core behavior comes first and the differentiator against search_datasets follows immediately, so it is well front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by noting the why_relevant field in results. For a simple two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, that is nearly enough, though ranking volume or result limits remain unspecified.

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 (task_description, budget_usd) are already documented with examples. The description only reinforces that the input is free-text; it adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('return DataBazaar datasets ranked by relevance') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_datasets. An agent can tell from the description alone that this is task-driven ranked recommendation rather than keyword search.

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 trigger condition is clear: use when you have a free-text research or analysis task, and it is positioned as 'more targeted than search_datasets.' It names the alternative but does not spell out an explicit either/or rule or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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