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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), ownership restriction, the AUTARIO_API_KEY requirement, and the protected public-catalog contract. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure that helps an agent avoid destructive mistakes.

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?

The core action and irreversibility are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every clause earns its place: ownership, public-catalog exclusion, API key. The pipe symbol ('owner can delete it | the public catalog') is an awkward separator, but there is no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema destructive tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers what happens (permanent full deletion), who may call it (owner), what is required (API key), and what is protected (public catalog). The only gaps are failure/return behavior (e.g., error if not the owner or dataset already deleted), which the idempotentHint partially addresses.

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% — dataset_id is fully documented as 'The UUID of the dataset to permanently delete.' Per the baseline rule, high coverage earns a 3 even without param detail in the description. The ownership phrase in the description slightly reinforces parameter intent but adds no new syntax or format information.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Permanently delete a dataset you own, and all its data.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list/query/update tools and from clear_rows (which removes data but not the dataset itself). The public-catalog exclusion adds further precision about what is NOT deletable.

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?

The description gives explicit when-not guidance: public-catalog datasets (World Bank, FRED, Eurostat, OECD, SEC) are not deletable, and only the owner may delete. It also states the API-key prerequisite. It stops short of a 5 because no alternative tool is named for the excluded cases, but the routing constraints are clear and actionable.

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