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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds substantial behavior: the return shape (data/total_matches/showing), result fields, archived meaning, ordering of current tables first, and error conditions. It also specifies the citation requirement for final responses.

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 core purpose and search behavior are front-loaded, followed by return details and next-step guidance. The citation block and exception list are somewhat verbose for a tool definition, though still operationally relevant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately supplies the return structure and key fields. With full parameter coverage and disclosed error behavior, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret its results.

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%, so search_term and max_results are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates AND keyword behavior and the default cap but adds no meaningful new parameter 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: searches data cubes/tables by English or French title. It clarifies case-insensitive substring matching and differentiates itself from get_cube_metadata by directing that tool only for dimensions and notes.

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 search semantics, AND logic across keywords, and the max_results cap, and it points to get_cube_metadata for follow-up metadata. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with get_all_cubes_list or state when browsing all cubes is preferable.

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