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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the return shape ('dataset cards, not values') and the soft ranking semantics of the country filter ('prefer datasets covering it'), which the agent cannot infer from the hints alone.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. Purpose, workflow position, filter scope, and return shape each earn their 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so adequately by contrasting cards against values. It does not say what fields a card contains or how many are returned by default beyond the schema's limit description, leaving a small gap for a discovery tool an agent must chain from.

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 every parameter (limit, query, country, source_name) is already documented in the schema, including the country 'prefer' nuance. The description only restates the optional filters at a high level and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so 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 (find) and resource (official health datasets) and enumerates the actual sources covered. It also positions itself in the family with 'Use first to get dataset ids' and distinguishes itself from get_dataset/get_series by declaring it returns cards, not values.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance ('Use first to get dataset ids') and a clear when-not-to-use signal ('Returns dataset cards, not values'), which routes the agent to get_series/inspect_dataset for actual values. It stops short of naming those siblings directly, so the routing is inferable rather than spelled out.

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