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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it clarifies that the tool covers a fixed set of 13 datasets (closed world in practice) and reveals the output linkage to other tools, which affects how an agent should chain calls. The 'no auth required' note also saves the agent from looking for credentials. It does not describe pagination or edge cases, but the non-paginated statement preempts that concern.

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 sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Search/browse the 13 High-Value Datasets') and then efficiently pack scope, filtering, output purpose, and auth status. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 tool is a simple search/reference operation with a clear scope and purpose. The description covers the essential context: what it returns, how to use it with sibling tools, the non-paginated nature, and the source. The output schema exists flag covers return format, and annotations cover safety. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already thoroughly documents the query substring behavior (case-insensitive, matches titles/keywords/themes), limit (1-13 default 13), and offset. The description restates the query filtering and adds that omitting query lists all 13, which is also in the schema. It does not add significant new semantics beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (search/browse), the exact resource (the 13 High-Value Datasets from the Hungarian Central Statistical Office), and clearly contrasts with siblings by noting it is the full EU-mandated HVD list, not a paginated catalog. It names the related downstream tools, distinguishing its role as the entry point for dataset_id 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?

Explicitly says it returns dataset_id + title for use in hungary-ksh.dataset_metadata and hungary-ksh.dataset_data, which tells an agent when to use this tool (to find datasets before fetching metadata or data). It also notes the 'full EU-mandated HVD category list, not a paginated catalog,' discouraging use for generic catalog browsing. Does not mention alternative search tools but the sibling set lacks a comparable 'search all datasets' tool, so this is clear enough.

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