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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the added value comes from clarifying the output scope: 'including all resources and their resource_ids'. This gives the agent an expectation of what the response will contain, which is useful beyond the annotation hints. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 a single, compact sentence that starts with the verb 'Show'. Every phrase adds value: what, for which resource, how to identify it, and what's included. No filler or redundant information is present.

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?

For a tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It specifies the input (id or name from search_datasets) and the expected output (full metadata, resources, and resource_ids). The annotations provide safety context, and the description fills in the behavioral detail needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already provides a full description for the 'id' parameter ('Dataset id or name (from search_datasets).'), and the tool description essentially repeats this information. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new semantic meaning to the parameter, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Show full metadata'), the target resource ('one Finland Open Data dataset'), and the method of identification ('by id or name'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_datasets by specifically focusing on a single dataset's full details, including resources and their resource_ids.

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 implies usage after search_datasets by specifying 'from search_datasets', indicating the expected workflow. It provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get detailed metadata for a specific dataset), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use query_resource instead.

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