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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about the data source (NZ open data catalogue) and the response content (metadata fields, resources, license). This is consistent with annotations and provides extra behavioral clarity.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose and lists the metadata fields without redundancy or unnecessary words, earning its place.

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 simple lookup tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the datasets scope (NZ data catalogue), the operation (full metadata by ID/slug), and the response content. The existence of an output schema means return format details are not needed in the description.

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%, but the description compensates by explicitly stating the parameter accepts an ID or slug. The example 'nz-population-census' further illustrates a slug. This gives the agent the necessary semantics to invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool returns full metadata for a dataset by ID/slug, listing specific fields (title, description, resources, organization, tags, license). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like package_search (which searches) and package_list (which lists all), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 for fetching a known dataset's metadata by ID/slug, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or recommend alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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