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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing the shape of the return (ids, titles, landing URLs) and that records are truncated relative to fetch, which is exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences: one establishes scope and return contents, the other hands off to fetch. Nothing is redundant and the essential information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and it explains the follow-up path via fetch. Minor omissions remain: no mention of pagination, result caps, or how many hits to expect, which matters for an agent deciding whether to refine a query.

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?

There is a single parameter (query) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds nothing about query syntax, matching behavior, or result limits, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Search Belgian open-data records" gives a specific verb and a scoped resource, and the second clause states exactly what comes back (result ids, titles, landing-page URLs). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search tools (search_datasets, search_subsurface), so it falls short of a 5.

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 routes the agent forward to a concrete alternative ("use fetch with an id for the full record"), which is useful next-step guidance. However, it never says when this general search should be chosen over the more specific search_datasets or search_subsurface siblings, leaving that choice to inference.

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