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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (dataset_ids, titles, themes, record counts) and the result-scoping constraint that only this regional catalog is searched. It says nothing about rate limits, auth, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 the core action and data source front-loaded and the downstream-consumption note following. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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-parameter, fully optional, read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is complete: it names the source, the search target, the return fields, and the next step. An agent has everything needed to call it and to use the result.

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 100% with clear per-parameter descriptions for query, limit and offset, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only reinforces that the query is keyword-based and that it targets titles/descriptions. Baseline 3 applies since no additional format or syntax guidance is offered.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('Search ... for datasets by keyword') and names the concrete data source, Occitanie Region Open Data, along with topical examples. It also clarifies downstream routing by noting dataset_ids are passed to query/dataset_info, which separates it from those siblings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from search_within, another search-shaped sibling.

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 implies usage for keyword discovery and explicitly signals that results feed into query/dataset_info, which is a useful workflow cue. There is no statement of when to use this instead of search_within or company_register_search, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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