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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'FREE beta' status and 'compact metadata' return scope, which are useful behavioral hints. However, it does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or what 'compact metadata' includes, which would add value beyond the annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key facts: free beta, search action, resource, and output type. It earns its place with no filler. It loses one point for not using the space to add a usage hint or sibling differentiation, but it is appropriately concise.

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 simple read-only search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The annotations cover safety and idempotency. However, the description does not mention what 'compact metadata' contains, how results are ordered, or any limitations (e.g., beta instability), which an agent might need to set expectations. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'search' and 'compact metadata' but does not explain the 'query' or 'limit' parameters beyond what the schema already shows (types, min/max). The 'limit' parameter's effect on result count is implied but not stated. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema provides structural constraints, but the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 ('Search'), a resource ('Government of Canada open datasets'), and a scope ('return compact metadata'). It clearly identifies the tool as a basic search variant, which helps distinguish it from the 'evidence' sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or contrast with it, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 implies usage: it is a basic search tool for Canadian open data, and the sibling list shows an 'evidence' variant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the evidence variant or other search tools. The 'FREE beta' note hints at availability but provides no concrete guidance on selection.

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