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 genuinely new behavioral detail: a hard 50-item cap and that active versions are returned. However, it is silent on the cursor-based pagination that plainly exists in the schema, which is the main behavioral trait an agent needs beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the result shape and cap are front-loaded and the alternative follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 values need not be explained, and the safety profile is handled by annotations. Still missing for correct invocation: how to page with `cursor` and what `workspace_id` scopes the listing to, both critical with zero schema coverage on a 2-param tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. Neither `cursor` nor `workspace_id` is mentioned; "up to 50" hints at paging but never says how to continue, and workspace scoping is left entirely implicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find up to 50 datasets and their active versions") and adds the item cap, which tells an agent the scope of the result. It does not fully differentiate from close siblings like list_pipelines or browse_dataset_rows, but the second sentence anchors it against get_dataset.

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?

Explicitly routes to get_dataset "for a selected schema," giving a clear alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of covering other plausible alternatives (browse_dataset_rows, query_dataset) or when a listing is inappropriate.

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