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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by noting the inclusion of non-queryable candidates and stating that it returns 'catalog matches and materialization state,' which is not in the annotations or schema. This adds value without contradicting any structured metadata.

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 two sentences, both front-loaded with the most critical information: the tool's purpose and the alternative condition. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

The description is largely complete for a read-only search tool with all-optional parameters. It covers what the tool does, what it returns (catalog matches and materialization state), and when to use a different tool. Minor gaps include lack of mention of pagination or rate limits, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so all three parameters (limit, query, source_id) are already adequately documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 search mechanism for datasets across all discovered official sources, explicitly including candidates not yet queryable. This distinguishes it from the sibling list_imported_datasets, which is about query-ready data only. The verb 'find' and resource 'datasets across discovered official sources' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'use list_imported_datasets when only query-ready data is acceptable.' This provides a clear conditional for tool selection, leaving nothing to inference. It also implies the tool is appropriate when broader discovery is needed.

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