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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds contextual details about return fields and the open data portal, but doesn't disclose anything beyond what the annotations imply, such as rate limits or the exhaustive nature of the search. It adds modest 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, scope, and output usage. It is front-loaded with the key action and portal name, then provides useful context and downstream usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 search tool with a comprehensive schema and annotations, the description is complete. It provides the source (Toulouse Métropole Open Data), the search basis (by keyword), example themes, and the output fields and their downstream use. Given the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values and next steps.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing all three parameters (query, limit, offset) with defaults and constraints. The description doesn't add additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, such as the meaning of the query parameter in terms of searching titles/descriptions, which is already in the schema. It aligns with the schema without duplication, but it doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none.

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 clearly states the tool's function: searching Toulouse Métropole Open Data datasets by keyword, with specific example themes. It also mentions return values (dataset_ids, titles, themes, record counts) and how to use them (pass to query/dataset_info), distinguishing its purpose from sibling tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: searching datasets by keyword, and mentions the context of the open data portal. It also states what to do after searching (pass dataset_ids to query/dataset_info), which clarifies its role relative to sibling tools like dataset_info and query, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives.

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