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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behaviour: it matches only against Bulgarian titles (not descriptions or English titles) and degrades to a full listing when no query is supplied.

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, zero filler, with the search scope front-loaded and the empty-query fallback as the closing clause. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 no output schema, the description never says what a hit looks like — whether it returns dataset IDs, titles, or fully-qualified identifiers the agent can feed into get_dataset. For a discovery tool that exists to produce arguments for other tools, that is a meaningful gap, though the search semantics themselves are complete.

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 both enums are documented with descriptions, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description echoes the Bulgarian-language hint already in the query property and adds no extra syntax or matching semantics beyond the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find datasets") plus the scope: two named publishers and the domain list (population, income, prices, GDP…). The Bulgarian-title matching criterion and the no-query behaviour make it unmistakably a catalogue search rather than the get_dataset / get_dataset_data 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?

Gives a clear entry condition: free-text lookup when the user has words, and an explicit fallback ("Without a query, lists all of them") for browsing the whole catalogue. It stops short of naming the alternative for when an ID is already known (get_dataset), so the hand-off to siblings must be inferred.

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