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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the result cap (25) and the exact fields returned (slug, name, unit, frequency, source, years covered), which matters because there is no output schema. Minor caveat: the schema's default limit is 10, so 'up to 25' describes the maximum rather than the typical response.

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 tight sentences: the first establishes what is searched, the second covers the return shape and the downstream handoff. Nothing is redundant and the most important information (what it does, what you get back) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by listing the fields and the result cap. Combined with the annotations covering safety and the downstream-tool routing, an agent has what it needs; only the default-versus-maximum result count distinction is left slightly ambiguous.

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 both parameters are already documented (query with an example, limit with its range). The description adds only the 'by keyword' framing and the result ceiling, which the schema already implies via limit's maximum of 25. 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?

Specific verb (searches) plus a clearly scoped resource (the EconDash catalogue of economic, financial, demographic and social indicators) and the matching mechanism (by keyword). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling retrieval tools, and the mention of the slug output further clarifies its role as the discovery entry point.

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 explicitly tells the agent that the returned slug is the input for get_indicator_series, compare_countries and get_indicator_details, which effectively establishes this as the tool to call first when the identifier is unknown. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' exclusion statement, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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