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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds critical context: matching logic (name or short_name, case-insensitive), the limit parameter's effect, and the output shape (includes a slug field). No contradictions 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with purpose, and includes an example and next-step usage in a clear, structured way. Every sentence adds 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?

With an output schema available, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and next steps, making it fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 provides zero description coverage, but the description explains query as the search string and limit as the maximum result count. The example demonstrates the query parameter's usage, fully compensating for the lack of schema detail.

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 ('Search') and resource ('WhatDoTheyKnow public authorities') and defines the search scope ('by name'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_request_events and get_authority_detail.

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 explains the behavior (matches name or short_name, case-insensitive, limit parameter) and provides explicit next-step guidance: 'Use the slug field with authority_json or build_request_url as the next step.' The example clarifies usage context.

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