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. The description adds the ODSQL dialect requirement, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about result shape, aggregation returns, or limits 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, front-loaded with the resource and dialect. The second sentence is somewhat list-like and duplicates schema parameter names, but there is no wasted prose.

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 read-only query tool with full schema coverage, the basics are present. With no output schema, however, the description should hint at what is returned (records, records+count for aggregations, ordering guarantees, pagination behavior), which it omits.

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 all eight parameters are already documented with types and examples; baseline is 3. The description's filter/aggregate/sort/paginate mapping largely restates the schema parameter names rather than adding syntax or constraint detail.

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 (query) and resource (records from a Strasbourg Open Data dataset) and names the query dialect (ODSQL), so the operation is unmistakable. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like search_within or dataset_info, but the verb+resource pairing is concrete.

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 second sentence enumerates what ODSQL can do (filter, aggregate, sort, paginate), which implies usage, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_within, search_datasets, or dataset_info. Usage must be inferred.

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