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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns relevance scores and publication dates, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or result ordering. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds only modest behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is concise, with the main action front-loaded. It includes a helpful example keyword list and a clear workflow hint. The mention of SSB as the Norwegian authority adds context but is not strictly necessary; overall it is well-structured without excessive length.

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 output schema exists (per context signals) and the schema documents parameters, the description covers the essential: what it does, what it returns, and how to proceed with the results. It does not mention pagination or limit behavior, but the schema covers limit. For a search tool, this is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100%: both query and limit have descriptions. The description adds example keywords and reiterates that it returns tables matching the keyword, which slightly reinforces but does not significantly expand on the schema. Given high coverage, a 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?

The description clearly states the verb (search), the resource (300K+ SSB statistical tables), and the output (table IDs, titles, subject paths, relevance scores, publication dates). It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from metadata and query tools by positioning it as the discovery step.

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?

It provides a clear workflow: use the returned table ID with ssbnorway.data.metadata and then ssbnorway.data.query. This implies this tool is the entry point for SSB data retrieval, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over other statistical search tools (e.g., scb.tables.query). The guidance is useful but not exhaustive.

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