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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavior: if a field fails to load, it returns an error object rather than failing the whole call. It also implies a read-only nature (describe operation). While it doesn't mention permissions or rate limits, the partial-failure behavior is a valuable addition beyond the schema.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a usage directive, a behavioral note, and a parameter explanation. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description explains the parameter format and usage. An output schema exists, so return value structure is already defined. The description covers the purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and error behavior—nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this 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?

The schema only defines dsid as a string with no further meaning. The description's Args section specifies the format ('dNNNNNN') and provides an example ('d083002'), which is essential for the agent to construct a valid call. This goes beyond the schema and fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a clear action ('Return a combined overview of a dataset') and enumerates the specific fields included (abstract, temporal/spatial coverage, variables, formats, volume). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_dataset_field by saying 'Prefer this over calling get_dataset_field repeatedly,' which makes 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 provides an explicit usage condition: 'Prefer this over calling get_dataset_field repeatedly when the user wants a general summary of a dataset.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over its obvious alternative. It also mentions a fallback behavior for field load failures, giving context on error handling.

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