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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of describing behavior. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation and the object returned is characterized as a template, which is reasonably transparent for a simple getter. However, it does not describe error behavior, permissions, or the exact format of the returned control file template.

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 two sentences and every part earns its place: the main purpose, the parameter name, the expected format, and an example. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with 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 simple one-parameter getter with an output schema available, the description is largely complete: it names the exact resource, the required parameter, and the parameter format. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage routing to sibling tools, but that is partly covered by the template-specific wording.

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 only defines dsid as a string, while the description adds the required format '(dNNNNNN)' and a concrete example ('d083002'). This is meaningful semantic information beyond the schema and 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the control file template for building a subsetting request for a dataset.' This clearly positions the tool as returning a template rather than submitting or validating a request, distinguishing it from siblings like submit_subset_request and validate_subset_request. The dsid format example ('d083002') further sharpens the purpose.

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 phrase 'for building a subsetting request' implies when the tool should be used, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_data_access, submit_subset_request, or validate_subset_request. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the routing mostly to inference.

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