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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: 'metadata only - no record content' and 'counts refresh with each data release (schema 1.9),' which tells the agent the data is non-content and time-versioned.

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?

Front-loaded with labeled sections (Purpose / Guidelines / Limits / Ex.) so the agent can scan to what it needs. It is dense and listy, but nearly every clause earns its place; the only mild redundancy is restating parameter behavior already in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary and correctly omitted. Purpose, discovery guidance, and limits are all present; the definition is complete for a zero-required-parameter discovery tool, with only the sibling-overview distinction left implicit.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with two enum parameters already fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reframes them as usage advice ('pass language=en for English output, response_format=json for Agent processing') but adds no syntax or default information the schema does not already contain.

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?

Gives a specific verb+resource ('dataset overview') and enumerates exactly what it returns: version, record counts per table, entity-ID rules, confidence grading, verified-supplier counts, tool index, module map. It is clearly the server-wide entry point rather than a domain tool, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling overview tools like get_feedstock_overview or get_trade_dataset_overview.

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?

States a clear directive: 'call this FIRST when discovering the server, then route to specific query_* tools,' which tells the agent both when to use it and what to do next. It stops short of naming the other *_overview siblings as alternatives, so the routing guidance covers only the query_* family.

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