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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: the tool is free, covers all discovered sources, includes non-queryable candidates, and returns materialization state. This meaningfully supplements the annotations, though it does not detail rate limits or result ordering.

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 with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by return behavior and a clear routing instruction. Every clause contributes value.

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 simple optional-parameter search tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It names the key return elements ('catalog matches and materialization state'), though the absence of an output schema means 'materialization state' is left somewhat undefined.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter coverage, including descriptions for limit, query, and source_id. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, but the schema already carries the full burden, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('find'), a specific resource ('datasets across all discovered official sources'), and explicitly scopes the tool to include candidates not yet queryable. It also distinguishes itself from list_imported_datasets, clarifying what this tool is and is not.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this when exploring all discovered sources, including non-queryable candidates, and use list_imported_datasets when only query-ready data is acceptable. This directly helps an agent select between siblings.

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