search_datasets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that it searches raw catalogs and implies a read-only operation, and it notes that it returns metadata (not rows) by suggesting a follow-up with get_dataset. While it doesn't exhaustively describe all behavioral aspects, it provides sufficient context for this 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 concise, well-structured, and free of fluff. It conveys the purpose, usage context, and additional notes in a compact paragraph, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description provides sufficient context: it clarifies the scope (raw catalogs), differentiates from search_indicators, and gives language indexing tips. Since an output schema exists (though not shown), the return type is likely specified elsewhere, so the description doesn't need to explain it. The only minor gap is not detailing the exact output format, but this is acceptable given the output schema's presence.

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?

The input schema covers most parameters: 'query' and 'provider' have descriptions, but 'limit' only has constraints. The description adds little beyond the schema, though it does clarify that TÜİK index is in English and İBB in Turkish, which indirectly informs the 'provider' parameter. Overall, schema coverage is high, so the description adds marginal value.

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's function: searching raw dataset catalogs from source institutions. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_indicators' by explicitly noting when to use it, providing a clear verb and resource.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this when search_indicators returns nothing useful, and always for city-level questions about İstanbul.' It also recommends a follow-up action (get_dataset), making the when-to-use context very clear.

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