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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does a solid job: it discloses the free-tier record cap, retention of rejected rows for depin_onchain, the limited validity of observation_quality, the meaning of not_checked, and the proof-hash coverage limitation. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 first sentence immediately states the action and parameters, followed by terse, relevant caveats. The domain-specific details about depin_onchain and observation_quality are dense but necessary behavioral context, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the critical context an agent needs: pagination parameters, free-tier limits, and important data-quality caveats. It does not cover ordering or error behavior, but for a read-only query tool the provided context is strong.

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 already describes all three parameters, including the free-tier max of 10 for limit. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond restating limit/offset behavior, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Query records from a dataset with limit/offset.' This clearly states the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like list_datasets, which are about enumerating available datasets rather than retrieving records.

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?

The description makes the core use case clear by stating it queries records from a dataset, but it does not explicitly say when to avoid this tool or point to an alternative such as list_datasets. The usage is implied rather than directly compared against siblings.

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