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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'show dataset and field descriptions.' It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, whether authentication is needed, or how the optional filter affects the output.

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?

The description is extremely concise (three words in Swedish) and front-loaded with the action and object. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple with only one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it leaves ambiguity about the exact return structure and whether the filter is applied to datasets, fields, or both, which a slightly richer explanation could resolve.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter, describing it as 'Valfritt dataset-ID att filtrera på' (optional dataset ID to filter on). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Visa' = show) and resource ('dataset och fältbeskrivningar' = dataset and field descriptions), clearly conveying a metadata retrieval purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools, but the name and content make the function reasonably clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and sibling list.

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