OECD-Search

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 states this is a search operation and describes the return format, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether results are paginated, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that directly state the purpose and return format without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently communicates essential information.

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 search tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers the basic purpose and return format but misses parameter details, behavioral context, and differentiation from sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional information.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It mentions 'by keyword' which implies the 'query' parameter, but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid query or search syntax. The 'limit' parameter isn't mentioned at all, leaving it completely undocumented. This partial coverage of 2 parameters with 0% schema support is inadequate.

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 verb ('Search for') and resource ('OECD datasets (dataflows)'), and specifies what information is returned ('IDs, names, and descriptions'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_dataflows' or 'search_indicators', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_dataflows' or 'search_indicators'. It mentions keyword-based searching but doesn't clarify if this is the primary search method or if there are specific scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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