search_datapoints

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful context absent from the schema — the credit conversion ('1 credit = $0.01') and the valid limit range (1-100) — but it never states that this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, whether search is paged beyond 'limit', or what happens when no filters are supplied (all results vs none).

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded ahead of the parameter block, and each parameter line is a single sentence that earns its place with no filler. The raw 'Args:' docstring formatting is slightly mechanical but does not waste tokens.

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 six all-optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should say more about what a search returns (fields of a data point) and how this connects to the request_data/get_datapoint flow. The parameter block is complete, but the result shape and follow-up path are left to inference.

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 0%, so the description must do all the work, and it documents all six parameters with added meaning: q is AND-semantics across name/description/category/seller, category is exact-match with examples, max_price carries a currency conversion, and limit is bounded 1-100. This is meaningfully richer than the bare anyOf property names 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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Search data points offered by sellers'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like search_sellers, get_datapoint and request_data. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for finding data points, and the category parameter cross-references list_categories ('see list_categories'). There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note that get_datapoint/request_data is the follow-up step, and no mention of when to prefer search_sellers instead.

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