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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add content context, which it does by enumerating exactly what metadata comes back, including the plan requirement and free preview window. With no output schema, this return-content disclosure is genuinely valuable; it stops short of 5 because it says nothing about behavior for an invalid or unknown dataset id.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with no wasted words, and the most distinctive item (field definitions) is front-loaded. The fragmentary noun-phrase style costs a little clarity versus a proper verb-led 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, describing the returned fields is the main requirement, and that is largely met. Gaps remain around error behavior and sibling differentiation, which an agent needs to select this tool confidently.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including an example id format and the list_datasets provenance. The description adds no additional meaning about the dataset identifier, 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?

The description is a noun phrase listing returned content (field definitions, intervals, exchanges, plan, preview window) rather than a verb+resource statement; the verb 'describe' comes only from the title. It is clear that this retrieves metadata about one dataset, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_data or list_datasets, which also concern dataset data.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. The only workflow hint, that the id comes from list_datasets, lives in the schema rather than the description, and nothing tells the agent when to pick this over get_data or list_datasets.

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