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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavior. It does: the response includes a version and a sha256, and that sha256 functions as a required token for the later acceptance call — a coupling contract not visible in the schema or annotations. It stops short of describing format/size of the agreement text.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what is fetched before moving to the workflow instruction. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, which it does (full agreement text, version, sha256). Combined with the pre-acceptance workflow cue, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool is context-free and implicitly selected by dataset, leaving no parameter semantics to explain.

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?

Specific verb (fetch) plus specific resource (the Stockfilm Dataset License Agreement full text) and it names the concrete artifacts returned (version, sha256). It distinguishes itself from the sibling accept_dataset_agreement by explicitly framing this as the pre-acceptance read step.

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?

It states exactly when to call it ('Show the text to the buyer before accept_dataset_agreement') and names the alternative/next tool. It also states the downstream obligation ('the sha256 must be sent back on acceptance'), which tells the agent how this call feeds the sibling.

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