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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond those: 'no auth, unlimited free access', 'Source: opendata.cbs.nl — CC BY 4.0', and results ordered by most recently updated. 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 packs catalog size, subject domains, return value, filter options, ordering, source, license, and auth into four sentences, with the most important action and resource at the front. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

The output schema and annotations are rich, so the description only needs to add decision-level context, which it does: scope, downstream use, filters, ordering, and access constraints. Nothing an agent needs to know to decide to call this tool or interpret the result 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%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description enriches semantics by giving Dutch keyword examples ('bevolking', 'werkloosheid', 'bbp') and by explaining the ordering behavior that underpins skip/limit pagination.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Statistics Netherlands (CBS) open data catalog of 5900+ statistical datasets'. It also states the exact output ('Returns table identifiers needed for table_info, table_properties, and table_data queries'), which clearly differentiates it from the data-retrieval sibling tools in the same namespace.

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 says the tool returns table identifiers needed for table_info, table_properties, and table_data queries, implying when to use it (as a discovery step before fetching data) and naming the downstream tools. It gives concrete filter guidance via example keywords and frequency/language filters, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name competing catalog search tools.

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