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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real boundaries beyond that: no private data and no dataset rows are returned, and the copy path rechecks eligibility and imports a snapshot without collecting or charging rows. The enumeration of returned fields is somewhat redundant with the output schema, which keeps this from a 5.

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 purpose, then pagination, then return contents, then the follow-up action — a sensible order with no filler. It runs slightly long by folding the copy_dataset workflow into this tool's text, though that information is genuinely useful.

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 two-parameter read-only search with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it and to act on results. The return-field recap duplicates the output schema, but nothing material 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 coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does: query is explained as matching title/description/dataset name with empty meaning browse, and cursor is explained as paginating the same query. It stops short of stating format or limits, but the semantics an agent needs are present.

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 published datasets across the public directory') and narrows the search fields to title, description and dataset name. This clearly separates it from list_datasets (own datasets) and browse_dataset_rows (row-level access).

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 explicit operating conditions: empty query browses one page, and pagination is done by following next_cursor with the same query. It also states the downstream step — pick a result then call copy_dataset with a target organisation from get_context — which is a genuine when-to-use-vs-what-next routing instruction.

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