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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description does add genuine non-obvious context: a hard cap of 20 compact records per page, inclusion of source and licence fields, and a prompt-injection warning that dataset text is untrusted. It does not cover pagination limits or auth needs, but the untrusted-data caution is real value beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by return shape then the security caveat. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does sketch the return shape (compact records with source and licence), which helps. But with five undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and no routing guidance to the sibling tools, an agent still lacks enough to invoke this confidently in context.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails: query, category, language, and page are never explained. The 'at most 20 compact records per page' line only obliquely signals the page_size maximum (20) already encoded in the schema, leaving the rest undocumented.

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: 'Search the published DesiData catalogue.' That is clearly distinguishable from get_dataset_details and preview_dataset by implication, though no sibling is named explicitly. A clear purpose that stops just short of explicit differentiation.

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?

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus get_dataset_details, preview_dataset, or the generator/notebook siblings, and gives no exclusions. The discovery role is only inferable from the verb 'Search'; nothing is stated about follow-up or fallback.

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