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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the search scope (titles and measure names) and the shape of the result (measures, dimensions, metadata), though it says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or what an empty match looks like.

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?

Two sentences, tightly front-loaded with purpose before usage context, and nothing padding. Minor overlap between 'by title, measures, and category' and the return payload listing 'measures, dimensions, and metadata' keeps it just short of ideal.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so. The main remaining gap is sibling disambiguation within the crowded datastore_* family, which matters because six similarly named datastore tools exist.

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%, with each of the four parameters documented including the limit default and maximum and an example for measures. The description restates the searchable fields at a high level but adds no syntax, matching semantics, or defaults beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Business Context datastore documents') plus the searchable fields (title, measures, category) and the return payload (documents with measures, dimensions, metadata). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like datastore_query, datastore_list, or datastore_get_document, so an agent must still open schemas to choose between them.

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 last sentence gives use-case context ('building reports, analyzing KPIs, looking up financial benchmarks'), which implies when the tool is appropriate. It names no alternatives and no exclusions, so it does not tell the agent when to prefer datastore_query or datastore_get instead.

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