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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful domain context by enumerating observable fields (pick, sampling, landed count, running state). This goes beyond the annotations but doesn't cover auth/permission nuances or output shape.

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?

Single long sentence with a colon list that crams many concepts (dataset, purpose, pick, sampling, count, state) into one clause. Front-loaded with the key subject but the density slightly hurts scannability.

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 a small, fully documented 2-param schema and no output schema, the description gives a rich picture of what items contain. It omits pagination/limit behavior, but that's a minor gap given no such params exist.

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 the schema fully documents sourceId and workspace. The description adds no parameter-level hints beyond confirming that this tool is scoped to a source, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 resource (datasets a source keeps adding to) with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from the broad caliper_datasets_list by anchoring to a source and 'live/ongoing' nature, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alt.

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 context is implied through 'datasets this source keeps adding to' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-use-alternative guidance. An agent must infer from the required sourceId that this is source-scoped listing.

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