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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds the return payload (indicator ids + bilingual titles + reporting frequency) and catalog size (~2,600 indicators), which enriches the behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

A single well-structured paragraph: it opens with the core purpose, then scope, then return value, then sibling pointer, and closes with preference guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff.

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 simple 2-param search tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format, the scope, how to get the full series, and when to prefer it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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% – both parameters (term, limit) have clear descriptions. The tool description reiterates the language support ('English or Arabic') but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('GASTAT's Saudi Arabia statistics catalog'), enumerates example topics, and explicitly differentiates from gastat_series by noting it returns indicator ids + titles, not time series. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH for finding an official Saudi statistic by topic') and directs to the sibling tool for full time series ('pass an id to gastat_series'). No inference is required.

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