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 implies a read operation via 'Return' but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention error behavior (e.g., invalid field or missing dataset). It does list allowed field values, which adds some context, but lacks explicit safety or error disclosure. Given the simple getter nature, this is a minimal but acceptable level.

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 efficient and well-structured: purpose is stated first, then usage guidance, then parameter details in a compact Args block. There is no fluff or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (two simple string params) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return format), the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. It could mention error handling for invalid fields or non-existent datasets, but that is a minor gap given the output schema and the simple nature of the operation.

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%, but the description fully compensates: it provides a concrete example for dsid (d083002) and enumerates all valid field values. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema, making parameter semantics clear and actionable.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Return one metadata field for a dataset.' It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling describe_dataset by naming the scenario where the sibling is preferred, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly says when to use describe_dataset (general summary covering several fields) and when to use this tool (single field, including fields describe_dataset doesn't cover). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, leaving nothing to inference.

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