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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add context. It does add useful behavior by telling the agent what comes back (dataset_ids, titles, themes, record counts) and what to do with it. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior beyond what the schema states, which keeps it slightly below the top band.

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 sentences, no filler: the search action and scope come first, followed by the return fields and the handoff to query/dataset_info. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 three-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the downstream tools that consume the dataset_ids. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema documents all parameters, so nothing essential 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% and each of the three parameters (limit, query, offset) carries its own description plus a worked example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that search is by keyword and adds no format, syntax, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Search ... Open Data for datasets by keyword") and scopes the domain to Angers Loire Métropole with concrete keyword examples (mobility, urban services & environment). It also positions itself relative to siblings by naming dataset_info and query as downstream consumers, so an agent can tell it apart from those without opening schemas.

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 line "Returns dataset_ids (pass to query/dataset_info)" clearly establishes this as the discovery-first step and routes the agent onward, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions or when a different search tool (e.g. search_within) would be preferred, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule set.

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