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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what is returned and, importantly, what is excluded (the full value table), which helps set agent expectations.

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, focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, then packs essential return-field details and an exclusion into minimal words. Every part 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 simple one-parameter, read-only list operation, the description is complete: it states the resource, scope, returned fields, and what is deliberately omitted. Annotations cover the safety profile, and no output schema exists to explain return values, so the description carries the burden well.

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 is only one parameter, projectId, and the description references it via 'in a project', giving some context. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the expected format, semantics, or error behavior of projectId beyond what the parameter name already implies.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'datasets', the scope 'in a project', and the specific returned fields (id, name, row/column counts). It also explicitly distinguishes itself by noting it does not return the full value table, which separates it from get_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 gives clear context: this tool enumerates dataset metadata and sizes without pulling full data. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the parenthetical '(without the full value table)' implicitly steers the agent away from using this when dataset contents are needed.

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