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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what each returned row contains (source agent, cut runs, target verifier, bound fixture manifest) — return-shape context that no structured field provides since there is no output schema.

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, then row contents, then example intents. Three sentences with little waste. The example-question phrasing is slightly padded but still earns its place as intent signaling.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the row payload and the source of the data. Annotations cover safety and params are fully documented in the schema. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it from being complete.

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 agentId and customerId are already documented in the schema. The description only obliquely gestures at agent filtering ('is there a dataset for this agent?') and says nothing new about the customerId superadmin scoping, so it does not meaningfully extend the schema — 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('datasets curated from an agent's completed runs') and even enumerates the metadata each row carries (source agent, run count, verifier, fixture manifest). It clearly reads as a list operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like list_dataset_examples, list_dataset_versions, or get_dataset, so it stops 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?

Usage is implied via the answerable questions ('what datasets do we have?', 'is there a dataset for this agent?'), which hints at the browse-and-filter use case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives (get_dataset for one, list_dataset_examples for examples), so routing must be inferred.

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