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

Goes well beyond the annotations: irreversible action, 409 abort on a violated check, diversity-floor behavior (freezes but marked blocked), and scope enforcement that write/admin/superadmin keys cannot call it. It also discloses what the response contains (counts, coverage, hashes, never examples) and how the version is stamped.

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 action, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct value (irreversibility, error behavior, response shape, scope). The em-dash phrasing is dense, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description covers return contents, failure semantics, authorization scope, and irreversibility — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so both parameters are already documented (datasetId references list_datasets; customerId notes superadmin-only). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the load and baseline 3 applies.

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 (freeze) and resource (an immutable, numbered dataset version under the leakage contract), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like create_dataset, bind_dataset_version and list_dataset_versions. An agent can tell exactly what this produces without opening the 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?

Clearly frames when it applies — freezing the version that training binds to under the leakage contract — and states the required approve scope. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling (bind_dataset_version), so routing between the two still requires inference.

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