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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and caching behaviour are covered. The description adds useful context about the payload contents (suggested tool, its parameters, license, page URL), though with an output schema present that is partly redundant. No mention of result ordering, ranking by the query, or what happens on an empty match.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, which is good, but the long parenthetical list of topic areas largely re-states information an agent gets from the category enum and from the returned catalog itself. The clause "with the best tool to call, its parameters, license and finwire.pl page" is grammatically loose and slightly obscures what the tool actually returns.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter, read-only discovery tool with a full output schema, the essentials are present: it covers scope and a fallback usage rule. What is missing is the workflow — whether to call the suggested sibling with its returned parameters, and whether the query is fuzzy-matched or exact. Adequate but not complete for a tool whose whole value is routing.

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 query parameter documents Polish/English word matching with examples, and category documents its enum. The description says nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

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 names the resource (a catalog of all finwire.pl datasets) and states what each entry carries: the best tool to call, its parameters, license and page. An agent can tell this is a discovery/routing tool rather than a data-fetch tool. It stops short of a crisp verb ("search" vs. "list") and never contrasts itself with the similarly named get_dataset sibling.

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?

"Use when no other tool obviously fits" is the only routing guidance, and it is a negative fallback rule rather than positive guidance. Nothing says to call this first when the right dataset tool is unknown, and the overlap with siblings get_dataset and list_macro_indicators is not addressed. An agent could plausibly never conclude that 'no other tool obviously fits' and skip this tool entirely.

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