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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: exact row cap of 25, CSV format with header, guarantee that the sample matches the published page file, and the pricing/boundary fact that the full dataset is invoice-only. Nothing material about the call's behavior is left unstated.

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, front-loaded with the resource, format, and size, followed by the purchase boundary. The trailing 'Free.' is redundant with 'The free sample' in the opening clause and is the only wasted token.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: format, header-plus-rows shape, and row ceiling. Combined with the clear purchase boundary, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret 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 is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, with the schema already providing the type, maxLength, and an example slug. The description only reinforces that exactly one dataset is targeted, adding no syntax or lookup guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('the free sample of one dataset as CSV') and pins down the exact artifact: the header plus up to 25 real rows, identical to the published sample.csv. It implicitly separates itself from the paid full-file siblings by stating that no tool returns the entity-level file.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use: verify fields and joins before purchase, and a hard exclusion: the full file is never available through any tool and must be bought by invoice. It stops short of naming a specific sibling such as get_dataset or list_datasets for related lookups, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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