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

readOnlyHint already covers the read-only safety profile, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail on top: aliases, typo-tolerant indexing, ranked results with match scores, optional filters, and that it is free. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core search function, followed by output behavior and filter options. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant schema text.

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 covers query semantics, ranking/match-score output, available filters, and cost, while the schema fully documents parameters and their constraints. For a search tool without an output schema, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema handles the parameters themselves. The description still adds value by clarifying that the query is interpreted with natural-language, alias, and typo-tolerant semantics and by flagging country/category filters as optional.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('data services') and further specifies how the search behaves: keyword/natural language queries, aliases, and typo-tolerant indexing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_services and suggest_service.

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 opening phrase 'Search data services by keyword or natural language query' establishes when to use this tool: when looking up a service by free-form query rather than enumerating the catalog. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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