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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds 'public' and 'may retrieve from,' which is useful scoping context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose pagination or response format, but that is partially handled by the output schema.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and object, contains no filler words, and communicates scope and purpose efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is adequate. It explains what the tool does and its scope. It could mention that the output is a list of dataset identifiers, but the output schema already provides that detail.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain any parameters. For a tool with no parameters, the baseline is 4, and nothing is missing.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List public Koskamo datasets' and clarifies the purpose with 'an agent may retrieve from.' This distinguishes it from siblings like koskamo_list_revisions (which lists revisions) and koskamo_retrieve (which retrieves a specific dataset).

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 implies the usage context: an agent would list available datasets before retrieving one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the phrase 'an agent may retrieve from' provides clear contextual guidance. Lacks explicit exclusions, hence not a 5.

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