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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavior beyond this: substring matching across code and all-language descriptions, and a list of fields each dataset contains (name, descriptions map, category id, supportedLocales, last-update timestamps). No contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the action and resource; the second explains the dataset structure and filtering. No unnecessary 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?

This is a simple list tool with two optional parameters, fully documented in the schema. The annotations cover the safety profile, and the description explains the filtering behavior and the fields in each returned dataset, effectively substituting for an output schema. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 provides 100% coverage of the two parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Browse/search Statbel datasets', clearly identifying the action and resource. It further details the dataset structure and filtering behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_dataset or list_views. This is a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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 clearly implies the usage context: browse/search datasets with optional case-insensitive substring filtering. It gives explicit filter semantics but does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. This is clear context without exclusions, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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