ipt_list_datasets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that private resources are excluded, clarifies that a records value of 0 reflects the inventory's lack of a count rather than an empty dataset, and details the side effect of searchMetadata (fetches EML). These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the basic 'list' operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and returned fields come first, followed by scope and behavioral nuances. Every sentence adds value (visibility, query behavior, records interpretation), with no redundancy or filler.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description lists the return fields and addresses key edge cases. It does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or error conditions, but these are minor and partially covered by the `limit` parameter schema. Overall, it provides enough for an agent to call and interpret results correctly.

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 schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds significant meaning: it explains that `query` matches id and title, and with `searchMetadata` also searches abstract and keywords. This enriches the semantics beyond the schema, while `limit` is well-specified by min/max/default in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('published datasets of the IPT'), and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, version, records, core, DwC-A/EML URLs). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'published' and 'IPT', which separates it from ipt_list_instances and ipt_list_managed_resources.

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 on what is listed (public datasets only) and how query and searchMetadata behave, but does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance. The 'Public: private resources do not appear' clause is a conditional, but no sibling tools are referenced or contrasted.

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