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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, idempotent behavior. The description complements this by specifying what the tool returns: columns, types, row count, category, and last-updated. It adds concrete behavioral details about the output without contradicting the annotations. Score 4 reflects the added value beyond the annotations.

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 efficiently includes the tool's purpose, the data source, the output contents, and an example. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or waste. This conciseness earns the maximum score.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists key return fields (columns, types, row count, category, last-updated), providing sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool produces. It does not detail the structure or format, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, the description is largely complete. Score 4 reflects minor room for improvement (e.g., specifying JSON structure).

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%, with the single parameter 'resource_id' having a description. The tool description repeats this example but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. For example, it does not explain the format or constraints further. Following the baseline of 3 for high coverage, the description provides marginal value, earning a 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 tool retrieves schema and metadata for a dataset from Orlando Open Data using a resource_id. The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'dataset's schema + metadata' make the purpose explicit, and the example clarifies usage. While it implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'datasets' or 'query', it does not explicitly contrast with them, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where the tool is appropriate or inappropriate. For example, it does not clarify whether this should be used before querying data or how it relates to the 'datasets' sibling. This lack of usage guidance justifies a score of 2.

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