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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the free-beta status and the type of content returned, which is useful context, but it does not disclose rate limits, response shape, or other operational behavior.

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 one tight, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource and the key result attributes without redundancy.

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 an existing basic sibling, the description leaves two important gaps: the evidence-vs-basic distinction and any indication of result structure or pagination. It is minimally viable for invoking a search, but not complete enough for confident selection among sibling tools.

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 must compensate for undocumented parameters. It never explains the query parameter beyond the obvious verb 'search', and it gives no meaning for the limit parameter or its 1-25 range.

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 identifies the tool as a New Zealand dataset search and names what it returns: descriptions, resource links, formats, and provenance. However, it does not explain what the 'Evidence' variant specifically adds relative to its basic sibling.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this evidence variant over nz_open_data_search_basic, nor does it give any exclusions or alternative conditions. 'FREE beta' conveys status but not selection criteria.

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