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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds 'Keyless' (no API key required) and explains the optional version behavior (omitting returns dataset-level metadata only, passing version returns status/assets/fields). This adds useful operational context beyond the annotations without 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?

Two sentences, tightly packed with essential information. The core purpose and key behaviors are front-loaded, and every clause adds value (metadata fields, version list, conditional version behavior, gfw_query dependency, keyless). No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and a schema covering parameters, the description fully conveys what the tool returns (metadata fields, version list, and optional version-specific details). It also notes the keyless requirement, which is important for usage. No gaps for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the schema by explaining that omitting version gives dataset-level metadata and that the version info is needed for gfw_query, but it does not add new technical detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 detail for a single Global Forest Watch dataset, listing specific metadata fields and version list. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gfw_datasets (plural, likely listing) and gfw_query (which consumes the version info) by focusing on 'ONE' dataset and the dependency for query building.

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 context: use this to get dataset metadata and version details needed before gfw_query. It mentions 'which is what gfw_query needs', providing a clear workflow cue. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the single-dataset scope and the reference to gfw_query give adequate guidance.

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