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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that queries use ODSQL and which operations are available, but is silent on rate limits, error behavior, or return shape — modest added 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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste: the resource and query language are front-loaded, followed by a compact mapping of operations to parameters. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter ODSQL tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the query capability set and parameter roles, and annotations cover the safety profile. It could be more complete by indicating return format or default/pagination behavior, but nothing critical to calling 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 every parameter is already documented in the schema (including the where-overrides-query note). The description's role-mapping of params to operations is mildly clarifying but largely restates what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (query) and resource (records from an Aix-Marseille-Provence Open Data dataset) with the mechanism (ODSQL), and the schema's dataset_id reference to search_datasets implies the find-vs-query split. However, it never explicitly names a sibling to differentiate from, leaving that distinction to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied by the parenthetical mapping of operations to parameters (filter, aggregate, sort, paginate). There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_datasets or search_within, and no mention of when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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