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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is not carrying that burden. It adds that the returned dimensions and series are "live," which usefully explains the surprising idempotentHint=false, but it says nothing about failure modes when a dataset_code is unknown or about size/latency of the metadata payload.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the payload contents front-loaded and the sequencing instruction trailing as a natural second clause. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values did not need explaining, and annotations cover the safety profile. The real gap is the two undocumented required parameters with 0% schema coverage, which is exactly where the description should have compensated and did not.

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 0% and the description never mentions either required parameter. `dataset_code` is inferable from context, but `schema` (which namespace/domain to resolve the code against) is completely unexplained by both schema and description, so the agent must guess.

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 (describe) and resource (one dataset), then enumerates the actual payload: topic, methodology, discontinuities, base-change notice, live dimensions, example series. It also names the sibling it follows (search_datasets), so an agent can place it in the pipeline without opening the 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?

"Call after `search_datasets` narrows you to a dataset" gives explicit sequencing and names the alternative tool that produces its input. There is no when-not guidance (e.g. do not call with a raw dataset name you have not resolved, or bulk use), which keeps it short of a 5.

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