search_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently documents wildcards, boolean operators, special filters, proximity search, and geographic indicators. It does not mention result shape or pagination, but it meaningfully explains how the search behaves beyond what the name alone suggests.

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 description is efficiently structured: the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the query syntax is organized as a scannable bullet list. Every clause contributes useful information with no filler.

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?

Given the moderate complexity of the tool, the description is largely complete: it explains the query language, supported filters, and geographic notation. The main gap is that there is no output schema and no description of what the search results contain, which an agent would need to know for downstream steps.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds substantial value by explaining query syntax details, filter prefixes, proximity syntax, and geographic code meanings, which go far beyond the schema's examples. The language and include_discontinued parameters are fully covered by the schema.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Search for tables in Statistics Norway (SSB) database.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools like query_table and metadata tools like get_table_info.

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 establishes clear context for when to use this tool: when looking for tables by metadata using search syntax. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use query_table to retrieve data,' but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended use.

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