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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns specific metadata (fields, themes, record count) but does not disclose additional traits like error handling or performance. Given the rich annotations, the description's marginal value is limited.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word adds value: 'Get metadata', specifics of metadata, and usage advice. There is no redundancy or extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description adequately covers the return contents (fields/schema, themes, record count) and the prerequisite for using the dataset_id. It lacks details about error conditions or the exact output format, but these are minor omissions.

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 fully describes the only parameter (dataset_id) with 100% coverage, including its source ('Dataset id from search_datasets'). The tool description does not add any further semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'metadata for one Centre-Val de Loire Open Data dataset', specifying the content (fields/schema, themes, record count). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_datasets by focusing on a single dataset's metadata.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'call before query to learn the column names.' This implies when to use (before querying data) and hints at the prerequisite of having a dataset_id from search_datasets. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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