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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior (multilingual matching in Swedish or English, and that matching spans names, descriptions and fields), but says nothing about result ranking, result limits, or how the returned tool references link back to the sibling endpoints.

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?

One sentence, no filler, with the core action and matching surface front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 only one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description carries little burden, and it does tell the agent what class of results to expect (datasets plus querying tools). It falls short of explaining result shape or that returned tool names are callable siblings, which matters in a 38-tool catalogue.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the query string is matched against dataset names, descriptions and fields, and that both Swedish and English terms work. That is real semantic value the 'What to look for' schema note does not convey.

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 verb ('Find') plus two concrete resources ('datasets and the tools that query them'), and reveals the matching surface (names, descriptions, fields). This functionally separates it from all 38 sibling tools, which fetch concrete data rather than discover it.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery entry point before calling a concrete dataset tool, but the description never says so, nor does it mention alternatives such as describe_endpoint or what to do with the returned tool names.

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