List USGS National Map Datasets

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the underlying data source (tnmaccess.nationalmap.gov), noting that no auth is required, and describing the per-dataset metadata that the response will contain.

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 three compact sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation and output, the second provides actionable cross-tool guidance, and the third gives provenance and authentication context. No filler or redundancy is present.

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?

Given only one optional parameter, high schema coverage, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete for agent use. It covers the purpose, output contents, source, authentication requirement, and the relationship to its sibling search tool, leaving no practical gap.

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%: the optional `category` parameter is fully documented in the schema with its meaning and matching behavior ('case-insensitive, exact match'). The description mentions 'category' as an output field but does not add any information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: 'List the geospatial dataset collections available from The National Map,' followed by concrete examples (US Topo, 3D Elevation Program, Hydrography, Imagery, National Structures). It also states the returned fields (category, refresh cycle, formats, info URL) and distinguishes itself from the sibling usgs-nationalmap.products.search by explaining the dataset titles are meant to feed that tool's `datasets` filter.

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 names the relevant sibling tool (usgs-nationalmap.products.search) and explicitly instructs the agent to use the dataset titles from this tool as the `datasets` filter for that search tool. It clearly frames the tool as a discovery/enumeration step, though it stops short of explicitly stating 'do not use this to search for products.'

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