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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact return format (dataset names, descriptions, and Socrata resource ids) and the intended downstream use with edmonton_query, which goes 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and providing only essential context. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the low-to-moderate complexity, the presence of annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool returns (dataset names, descriptions, Socrata ids), the source (data.edmonton.ca), and how to use the results (with edmonton_query). This fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (limit, query, offset, _apiKey). The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema—only implying that 'query' is a keyword. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the specific resource ('Edmonton open-data catalogue'), and states the exact outputs ('dataset names, descriptions, and Socrata resource ids'). It also clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'edmonton_query' by noting that the ids are intended for use there.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: to find datasets by keyword in the Edmonton open-data catalogue. It also implies the workflow of using the resulting ids with edmonton_query, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like edmonton_recent, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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