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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read-only metadata retrieval (source, date, licence, citation) with no side effects or parameters. It does not detail potential variations (e.g., what if citation format differs), but for a simple provenance tool this is adequate.

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 description is one clear, front-loaded sentence that immediately states what the tool provides and why to use it. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides all essential context: what it returns (source, date, licence, citation) and when to use it (for correct attribution). It is complete for a simple metadata retrieval tool. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the exact format of the citation, but that is likely covered by the returned data itself.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to add. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns (source, date, licence, citation), which is sufficient given the absence of parameters. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides source, computed date, licence, and citation for a specific dataset, and explicitly tells the agent to read it for correct attribution. It distinguishes itself from sibling dataset tools (columns, compare, row, search, stats, top) by focusing on provenance and citation rather than data manipulation or inspection.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating 'Read this to attribute a figure correctly,' which tells the agent when to call it (when attribution/citation is needed). It does not explicitly exclude other tools, but given the distinct purpose, the context is clear enough.

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