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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 200-result cap and the public REST API source (sdmx.ilo.org), plus the 'no auth required' note. These are useful behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, dense with relevant information: purpose, scope, filtering behavior, cap, downstream usage, and source. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool is simple (one optional parameter), has an output schema (so return format is defined elsewhere), and annotations cover safety, the description is complete. It explains the cap, the source, and the integration with sibling tools. An agent can call it correctly without further clarification.

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% (the single query parameter is fully described in the schema). The tool description essentially repeats the same parameter guidance (filter by substring, case-insensitive, omit to list all). It adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('search or list') and resource ('ILOSTAT labor-statistics dataflows'), with concrete domain coverage (employment, unemployment, wages, etc.). It also names sibling tools (ilostat.structure, ilostat.data) that consume its output, distinguishing it from other statistics tools. No tautology.

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 when to use query vs. omit to list all, and instructs to use the returned dataflow_id with ilostat.structure and ilostat.data. It implies this is the discovery step before fetching data, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like ilostat.series.data. Still, the usage flow is clear.

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