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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the shape of the return payload (id, title, description) and the follow-up call pattern. It stops short of stating rate limits or result-count behavior.

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?

Front-loads the resource and scope, then the return shape, then the authority/routing claim, ending with a concrete example. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns – and it does (id, title, description). Combined with the sibling pointer to ofgem_dataset_rows and the search-domain enumeration, an agent has everything needed to invoke this and chain the next call.

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 'page' and 'query' are documented in the schema, including the 24-per-page size. The description reinforces this only via an inline example call, adding no semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb pair (browse/search) and resource (Ofgem Data Portal catalogue), quantifies scope (~190 datasets), and enumerates the covered topics so an agent knows exactly what domain knowledge lives here. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ofgem_dataset_rows by naming that tool as the place to pass the returned id.

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?

Explicitly declares authority ('AUTHORITATIVE for UK energy market statistics') and an alternative to prefer over ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH for "Ofgem data on X"'), which is exactly the when-to-use routing an agent needs. It also implies the downstream step by telling the agent to pass the id to ofgem_dataset_rows.

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