search_statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and search scope are covered. The description adds what a caller would not otherwise know: a summary of the return payload (table IDs, titles, time coverage, last-updated dates) and the position of this call in a multi-step chain. It does not discuss result limits or pagination, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and routing before workflow and examples, which is the right order. Slightly over-long at the tail, with two separately labeled 'Example:' clauses and repeated parenthetical asides that a single terse example line would cover.

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 search entry point with an output schema present, the description supplies everything an agent needs: routing against the key-series sibling, payload contents, multilingual query support, and the downstream call sequence. No return-value detail is required given the output schema.

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 50%: the schema documents 'query' but not 'limit', and the description never mentions the result-count parameter or its maximum of 40. It does add language guidance and two concrete query examples, which enriches the required parameter beyond the schema, but the undocumented parameter keeps this at baseline.

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 and resource ('Search Statistics Norway's ~7,000 statistical tables by keyword') and scopes the corpus size. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (get_key_series), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Declares itself 'always the first step for statistics questions unless get_key_series covers it', enumerates the exact topics that alternative covers, and prescribes the follow-up workflow (get_table_info then get_statistics). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are explicit.

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