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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds critical non-annotation context: exact cost ($0.002 USDC per successful call), payment rail (x402 on Base/Solana/Arc), and the guarantee that failed calls are not charged. The non-tabular caveat further sets expectations about result quality.

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 tightly packed clauses: what it returns, the metadata-only caveat, then pricing. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the pricing sentence is dense and could be split for scannability.

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 an output schema present, return-field explanation is somewhat redundant but the description fully covers cost mechanics and a query-result caveat an agent needs before calling. Complete for a low-complexity, 2-parameter read 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%, so both q (2-80 chars) and limit (1-10, default 5) are fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely references 'a search term' and adds no syntax or ranking detail beyond the schema, so the 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+resource: a dataset catalogue search over HealthData.gov (HHS), and enumerates the returned fields (ID, name, short description, display type, last update, link). The source domain is specific enough to distinguish it from the many other gov_*_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?

Conveys implied usage ('for a search term') and a useful scope caveat that some datasets are non-tabular with no row API, but it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it versus siblings like gov_data_gov or gov_npi_registry.

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