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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds valuable context beyond them: the data source ('HDX CKAN Action API'), the explicit 'no auth required' note, and the scope of returned dataset fields. This gives an agent useful operational context without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Four tightly written sentences, each earning its place: the search action, filter dimensions, return fields, topic coverage, and source/auth note. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded in the first sentence, with no filler or 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?

With an output schema present, all parameters documented, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: it names the underlying API, confirms no authentication is required, and enumerates the returned fields and topical scope. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 all four parameters (rows, query, country, organization) are already documented with examples in the input schema. The description repeats the filter dimensions but does not add semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as slug syntax or return-limit behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Humanitarian Data Exchange catalog'), and the three primary filter dimensions (free-text query, country, organization). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling hdx.datasets.detail by describing catalog-wide search rather than single-dataset lookup.

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 when to use the tool by describing search over the HDX catalog and listing humanitarian topic areas, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as hdx.datasets.detail for retrieving a specific dataset, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is inferred from the name and sibling set rather than spelled out.

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