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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'FREE beta' (implying an experimental/unstable service) and 'compact metadata' (a return-shape hint), but does not disclose search semantics, pagination, or result limits beyond the schema.

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 terse sentences; 'FREE beta.' is a useful caveat and the second sentence front-loads the action and scope. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description is too thin: an agent cannot know what search syntax to use, what 'compact metadata' contains, or how limit behaves. Annotations cover safety but not invocation details.

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 needed to explain query and limit, but it doesn't. 'Search ... datasets' only restates what the query parameter name implies, and limit is entirely ignored. There is no added meaning beyond the bare schema constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a narrow resource ('New Zealand data.govt.nz datasets'), and the 'compact metadata' clause signals a lightweight result, distinguishing it from the sibling nz_open_data_search_evidence and the other countries' tools. The title's 'Basic' reinforces this.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus the evidence sibling or other country search tools. The description only says what it does; 'compact metadata' is an implicit hint but not a routing instruction.

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