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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payload contents but says nothing about side effects, permissions, caching or whether the result is a fixed document — reasonable for a zero-parameter metadata read, but it leaves the agent to infer that the call is safe and free.

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 short sentences, with the returned content front-loaded and the usage hint second. Slight overlap with the title ('Where this data comes from, and how to cite it'), which already conveys most of the first sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return content, which it does by listing source, date, licence and citation. It stops short of describing the shape or format of that payload, but for a zero-parameter static-metadata tool this is close to sufficient.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; the schema is empty and entirely consistent with the description.

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 names the exact resource and enumerates the fields returned: source, computation date, licence and citation for the Taxooor dataset. That is specific enough to separate it from dataset_columns, dataset_stats and dataset_search on content alone, though it uses a nominal phrase rather than an explicit verb and never names a sibling.

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?

'Read this to attribute a figure correctly' gives a clear triggering condition for calling the tool. It does not, however, name any alternatives or state when this is not needed (e.g. when no citation is required).

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