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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by naming the payload fields returned (dimensions, default_view, geos), which matters since there is no output schema, though it says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the parenthetical payload detail earning its place. No filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the source table and key return fields. It omits error behavior for unknown ids and any hint of how it relates to inspect_dataset, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Dataset id (main.id).'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description's 'by id (main.id)' merely restates it; baseline 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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (one dataset metadata row) and retrieval key (by id), with the returned payload enumerated (dimensions, default_view, geos). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling inspect_dataset, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single dataset when you already have its id. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as search_datasets or inspect_dataset, which is a real ambiguity given the overlapping sibling.

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