ons_search_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which covers the safety profile. The description's word 'live' adds a mild behavioral hint that results reflect current live datasets rather than cached data, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result format, or search semantics. Since annotations carry the main burden and the description adds only modest context, a 3 is appropriate.

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 single sentence 'Search live ONS datasets by term' is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity, though it is arguably too sparse to fully serve its purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema and safety annotations, the description leaves important operating details unstated: how term matching works, what limit/offset do, and when to prefer this tool over sibling ONS search tools. For a search tool with zero parameter coverage in the schema, one sentence is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly in all cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'term' and never addresses 'limit' or 'offset' semantics (e.g., default pagination, maximum page size, ordering). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to guess how term matching and pagination behave.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('live ONS datasets'), and the key parameter ('by term'), so an agent can grasp the core function immediately. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling search tools like ons_data_query or ons_select_search, leaving some ambiguity about which search tool to pick based on name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling alternatives (e.g., ons_data_query, ons_select_search, ons_codes_list). The description gives no context about when 'search live datasets by term' is the right choice, nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites, so the agent must infer usage from the schema alone.

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