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

Annotations already mark readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds behavioral context beyond that: it's a browse/discovery operation over a registry, and it returns indicator IDs. It does not describe pagination or ordering, but with the safety profile covered by annotations, this is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences deliver the resource definition, available attributes, and usage guidance with a sibling comparison, all without filler. The information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 discovery tool with seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context about what the registry contains, why to use it, and how the IDs feed into other tools. It does not spell out the response format, but that is a minor gap for this read-only browse tool.

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 100% and every parameter is already described in the schema. The description repeats the semantic meaning of topic, unit, frequency, entity_type, and publisher, but does not add new format or constraint details, so it stays at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Browse the Autario indicator registry' — and explains it is a semantic layer over major public catalogs. It lists what each indicator includes and explicitly contrasts itself with search_datasets, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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?

It states the exact use case: 'discover what data is available before querying it, and to get the indicator IDs' needed by other tools. It also provides a clear alternative rule: 'Much more precise than search_datasets when you know what topic, publisher or unit you need.'

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