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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that each entry includes API, coverage, cadence, auth and licence — which tells the agent what auth/access information it will get back — but says nothing about the search's own behavior (pagination, result limits, default ordering).

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 waste, with the resource scope front-loaded and the usage cue attached to it. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it explains what the catalogue covers and what fields each entry returns, so the agent knows what it will get. Only the search-side behavior (limits, ordering) is left implicit.

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 75%, so the schema already documents query, topic and fetchable. The description adds no filter semantics beyond what the schema provides, and the enum-valued license parameter has no description in the schema that the prose compensates for. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (catalogue of public data sources), with the domain scope spelled out (weather, water, hazards, flights, ships, energy, filings, trade). It is distinguishable from get_source/list_datasets by the explicit 'search' framing, though it never names a sibling to sharpen that contrast.

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?

'Use it to find where a kind of data comes from before writing a fetcher' gives a concrete triggering situation and intent. No exclusions or named alternatives are offered, but the context is clear enough to select correctly.

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