search_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the matching algorithm including the fallback behavior, that discontinued tables are excluded by default, and the limit range. It stops short of describing result ordering/relevance or pagination behavior beyond the offset hint.

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 the core purpose, followed by matching semantics and then a compact Args list; every sentence earns its place. Slightly list-heavy, but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers matching rules, scoping, pagination and all parameters. The main gap is routing guidance relative to the four sibling tools.

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, and it documents all five parameters with meaning plus examples for query. It adds the 1-50 limit constraint that the schema lacks, though default values (10, 0, false, null) are merely restated from 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Doorzoek de CBS-catalogus') and even quantifies scope (~6000 tables), searching on title and description. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings like get_table_info or query_data, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explains search mechanics (prefix matching, all-terms-required with fallback to at-least-one-term) and that a table ID can be passed directly, which implies how to use it. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_table_info, query_data, or refresh_catalog, and gives no exclusions.

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