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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real value beyond them: the search is hybrid (name/code plus embeddings), and critically it returns compact cards rather than series values. It does not disclose pagination or result-shape details, but the safety profile is fully covered.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the mechanism, then the filter affordances, closing with the key distinction from SQL. No filler and nothing padding.

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 compensates by stating the return is compact cards, not series values, which is the key expectation to set. It omits ranking/pagination behavior and any relationship to the search_datasets sibling, leaving a small but real gap.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the optional country and source_name filters without adding syntax, format, or interaction 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 (statistical datasets in the catalog) and enumerates the coverage (Eurostat, World Bank, OECD), plus names the SQL anti-pattern it replaces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_datasets, which an agent would reasonably confuse it with.

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 clear use-context by explicitly routing the agent away from 'SELECT … FROM main ILIKE' toward this tool, and notes the optional filters. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative such as search_datasets or stating when filters should be omitted.

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