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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's only added behavioral fact is that it is an alias of search_catalog, meaning identical semantics to that tool; it says nothing about result format, ranking, or limits beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact (the alias relationship) followed by the operation and filters. No padding, no redundancy.

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 4-parameter search tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is return-shape context — the schema mentions 'cards' and a default of 8 with a max of 16, but the description never says what comes back or that results are card-shaped.

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 query, country, source_name and limit are all documented in the schema with examples, making 3 the baseline. The description merely restates three of the four parameters and omits 'limit' entirely, adding no syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Find statistical datasets') plus the optional filters, and explicitly declares itself an alias of the sibling search_catalog, which tells an agent the two are interchangeable. It stops short of 5 only because it never clarifies how selection between the alias and search_catalog should differ.

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?

Usage is implied by the query-plus-filters framing, so an agent knows this is the keyword-search entry point for datasets. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no stated relationship (e.g. prefer this over search_catalog) despite a sibling that behaves identically.

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