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's only added behavioral fact is that results are scoped to the current tenant, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about pagination, result caps, or ordering, which matter for a list operation.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the scope constraint is front-loaded and the alternative is named last. Nothing needs to be trimmed or reordered.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies what an agent needs to select and call it correctly. The remaining omission, return shape and pagination, is minor; there is no output schema, so a brief note on result format would have made it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema shows. Baseline for a parameterless tool 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 and resource ('List evaluation datasets') plus the scoping constraint ('in the current tenant'), and explicitly names the sibling tool (dataset_get) it is not. An agent can distinguish this from dataset_get, dataset_item_*, and dataset_create without opening any 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?

Gives clear usage context: list here, then use dataset_get to inspect a dataset and its items. This is an explicit pointer to the correct follow-up tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., filtering, pagination limits) or how it relates to other list tools, so it is not a full 5.

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