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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as true/false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context by stating it returns matching datasets with specific fields. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states core functionality and source; the second adds geographic and publisher context. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it searches, what it returns (titles, descriptions, resources), and the source. It lacks explicit mention of pagination (start, rows) or default behavior, but these are partially covered in the schema. Overall, it is largely complete for a search tool.

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%; all five parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no additional details about parameters beyond summarizing the return. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'Government of Jersey open-data catalogue', specifying the source (opendata.gov.je, CKAN package_search). It provides context about Jersey and Statistics Jersey. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dataset_details or search_within, which could cause confusion in selection.

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 searching that specific catalogue and notes the return format (titles/descriptions/resources). It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as dataset_details for a single dataset or search_within for internal searches. The context is implicit but not fully directive.

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