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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds what data is returned (schema, columns, types, row count, category, last-updated), which is useful behavior context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence with an example, no filler. Effectively front-loaded and every clause adds value.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description explains the return content and the required input. It is complete for its scope, and no output schema is needed.

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 fully describes resource_id with the same example and coverage is 100%. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('a Virginia Open Data dataset's schema + metadata') with the fields returned (columns, types, row count, category, last-updated). The example resource_id adds clarity and distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'datasets' or 'query'.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving structural metadata by resource_id, and the example shows how the ID looks. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'datasets' or 'query', so it lacks explicit alternatives/conditions.

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