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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: explicit pricing ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc) and the key billing nuance that failed calls are not charged. It also discloses result ordering and cursor-based pagination, which are non-obvious behavioral traits.

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-loads the verb, scope and cost in one dense but well-ordered sentence, then tacks on pagination and price. It is somewhat long and spends a clause enumerating return fields that the output schema already covers, which is minor waste.

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?

A read-only, open-world search tool with full schema coverage, an output schema and annotations – the description covers scope, pagination, ordering and billing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 q, after and limit are already documented with examples and bounds in the schema. The description restates the cursor mechanism but adds no new syntax, format or constraint information beyond it.

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 (Search) and resource (the Data.gov catalog) with quantified scope (300,000+ US federal, state and local open datasets) and enumerates the returned fields. The 'US federal, state and local' scope implicitly separates it from the UK/Australia/Canada open-data siblings.

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 concrete operational guidance – results are in relevance order and the next cursor must be passed to paginate – and the example query words show the expected input style. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer this over gov_data_gov_uk or gov_australia_data_gov_au, leaving that to inference from the US scope.

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