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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds domain context ('curated', 'MOABB packs', 'available to pipelines'), but says nothing about result size, filtering behavior, or how the on-disk vs known-but-missing distinction surfaces — though the output schema likely covers the shape.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though it is arguably too terse to convey the listing action explicitly.

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 an output schema exists and annotations declare the read-only safety profile, the description need not explain return values. However, for a catalog entry point it provides no indication of scope (how many datasets, filtering options) or relationship to sibling catalog tools, leaving a modest gap.

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 100%, and the only parameter (only_on_disk) is well documented in the schema with its default and behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 identifies the specific resource — curated public EEG datasets (MOABB packs) — and the phrase 'available to pipelines' implies a listing operation. It distinguishes from siblings like catalog.nodes or catalog.templates by naming the resource domain, though it never states an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as data.inspect_dataset for drilling into a specific set. An agent must infer that this is the entry point for discovering datasets, without any routing help.

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