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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's added value is the commercial behavior it discloses: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls not charged. That is genuinely useful pre-invocation context (cost and payment rails) not present in structured fields. It stops short of rate limits, pagination, or result-quality caveats.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and source, followed by returned fields, then the scope caveat, then pricing — a sensible order with no filler sentences. Minor redundancy: the enumerated return fields overlap with what the existing output schema already conveys.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape is covered, and annotations handle the read-only/open-world safety profile; the description closes the remaining gaps that matter for a paid third-party call — jurisdiction, catalogue-only scope, and cost/refund behavior. What is still absent (ranking behavior, CKAN query syntax, pagination beyond rows) is low-risk for this simple two-parameter tool.

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% — q is documented as 2–80 characters and rows as 1–10 with a default of 5 — so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description reinforces the query intent ('for a search term') and adds no conflicting or missing constraint, which is appropriate at the baseline; the extra field list adds little to parameters specifically.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource with jurisdiction baked in: Australian government open datasets from data.gov.au via the CKAN API, searched by a term. It also lists the fields returned (title, publisher, licence, modified date, resource count, link), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling national open-data portals (gov_data_gov, gov_data_gov_uk, gov_canada_open_data) without opening the schema.

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 only implied: the jurisdiction in the description tells the agent this is the Australian portal, and 'Catalogue metadata only, not the data files' excludes one plausible-but-wrong expectation about output content. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over a sibling portal or what a search term should look like, so the agent must infer routing from names.

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