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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint:false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's only added behavioral detail is the queryable:true gating rule; it says nothing about pagination behavior, the limit ceiling of 100, or result shape, which matters for a paging-capable read tool.

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 with the eligibility constraint front-loaded and no filler. Slightly under-filled rather than over-filled, but every sentence 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 4-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the core call path is adequately conveyed. The main remaining gap is pagination semantics for limit/offset, which neither the schema nor the description explains and which an agent needs to page through large resources.

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 only 50%: limit and offset carry no descriptions, and the description does not compensate — it never mentions pagination, page size, or the 100-row cap. The one thing it does cover ('Optional full-text filter') is already documented verbatim on the query parameter, so it adds no meaning 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 ('Query rows from a data.gov.il resource') and names the gating condition (queryable:true), which lets an agent distinguish it from datagov_search (metadata search) versus row retrieval. The differentiation from siblings is implied by the resource-level scope rather than stated explicitly.

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?

The 'only resources marked queryable:true' clause is a genuine eligibility precondition, and the schema's resource_id hint ('from datagov_search') implies a search-then-query workflow. However, the description itself never tells the agent to run datagov_search first or what to do if the resource is not queryable; usage context is implied rather than stated.

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