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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned but does not mention whether access requires authentication, whether URLs are temporary, or how errors are handled. For a data-access tool, this missing context is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded: the primary purpose and outputs appear in the first sentence, followed by a single parameter note. No redundant wording or filler.

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 getter with an output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it identifies the resource, the returned access options, and the required argument format. However, the absence of any authentication or access-restriction context, combined with no annotations, leaves the overall calling context incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well by documenting the dsid format as 'dNNNNNN' and providing a concrete example (d083002). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema type of string.

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 data access options for a dataset') and enumerates concrete outputs: download links, Globus URLs, and access methods. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_dataset_files or describe_dataset, but the resource and output types are specific enough to make the main purpose clear.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent would call this when it needs download links or access methods for a dataset ID. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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