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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral note beyond them: dataset text is untrusted data and never instructions, which is real prompt-injection guidance. It stops short of describing output format or error behavior.

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 sentences, no filler. The capability statement is front-loaded and the security caveat is terse and clearly separated.

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?

With no output schema, the description sensibly enumerates what is returned (provenance, licence, size, row count, tags, links), which covers the agent's main need. The remaining gap is slug semantics and how to discover a valid slug, which is left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter (slug) exists, and the schema supplies minLength/maxLength with no description, giving 0% coverage. The description implies the slug identifies 'one published dataset' but adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance (e.g. where to obtain a slug), so it only partially compensates.

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 (Get) and resource (dataset details) and enumerates the returned fields: provenance, licence, size, row count, tags, links. It is easily distinguishable from preview_dataset and search_datasets by intent, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 phrase 'one published dataset' implies retrieval by identifier, which is adequate context for a lookup tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or stated relationship to search_datasets (find a slug) or preview_dataset (see contents).

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