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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful return-content context — each result carries API availability, key requirements, downloadability, commercial-use/embedding terms with quotes, and build ideas — which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about match semantics, result ordering, or what limit defaults to.

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, front-loaded with the resource scope and followed by the sibling hand-off to get_resource. The long parenthetical catalogue of example domains is dense but does real work in telling an agent what is indexed; "Remarkable" is the only clear filler.

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 seven parameters, no output schema and only two annotations, the description covers what kinds of data come back and where to go for detail, which is the essential part. It stops short of explaining search behavior, limit semantics, or how the boolean filters combine — gaps an agent must discover by trial.

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 coverage is 86%, so the baseline is 3 and the parameters largely document themselves. The description indirectly signals the filterable attributes by listing API availability, key requirements, downloadability and commercial use, which maps onto the free_api, no_key, commercial and live flags, but it never connects those concepts to the parameters or explains query matching behavior.

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 makes clear this is a discovery tool over a curated collection of "remarkable websites a project can build on" and enumerates the domains covered (live maps, open data, archives, space/science). It also differentiates itself from the sibling get_resource by stating that get_resource returns the full card. The only weakness is the missing explicit verb ("search" or "browse") — the intent is inferred rather than stated.

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?

One routing hint is present: use get_resource for the full card, implying this tool returns summaries. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over find_apis or find_assets, both of which sound adjacent, and no mention of the filter dimensions (live, no_key, free_api, commercial) that would let an agent narrow results deliberately.

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