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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing that results are 'curated third-party sources' (i.e., a fixed catalogue rather than a live crawl) and for prescribing sequencing relative to scraping. It does not say what happens when nothing matches or how many candidates come back.

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 core action in the first clause, then scope, then the workflow instruction — every sentence earns its place. The domain enumeration is slightly long and partially redundant with the enum, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 discovery tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, input intent, output nature, and sequencing advice. The remaining gaps — empty-result behavior and the role of the optional category — are modest but real.

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 50%: 'need' is well documented in the schema, while 'category' is only an enum with no description. The description's domain list loosely mirrors the enum values but never tells the agent what 'category' does, whether it is an optional filter, or how it interacts with 'need' — so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 where to get a dataset or data API') and immediately bounds the scope with a domain list. The second sentence clarifies the output nature (curated third-party sources) rather than live data pulls, which an agent could not infer from the name alone.

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?

'Call this before scraping or guessing' gives a clear trigger condition and effectively positions the tool ahead of ad-hoc web fetching or hallucinated sources. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming a concrete alternative, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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