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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a keyword search and returns matching report IDs with price, indicators, economies, and a free preview URL. It does not describe query semantics or ordering, but the core behavior and output shape are transparent enough for a read-only search tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function and then giving use-case and return behavior. The indicator list in the second sentence is broad but useful for an agent deciding whether the tool covers an economic topic, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose, the conditions under which to use it, and what the result contains. It could additionally mention result ordering or that returned report IDs can feed into buy_report/preview_report, but the essential calling context is present.

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 both parameters are already documented with types and examples. The description adds context about keyword searching over a report catalog, but it does not enrich the meaning of the limit or query parameters beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the report catalog by keyword' and explains that the tool returns matching report IDs. It is distinguishable from siblings like buy_report and preview_report by its search-and-discovery role, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with list_catalog.

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 an explicit use condition: 'Use when a task needs cross-country economic data... and you need to find which report covers it.' This explains when to call the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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