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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and the dsid default behavior is disclosed, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, requires no special access, or how it behaves on authorization/errors.

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 extremely concise, with the core purpose front-loaded and a single parameter explanation that earns its place. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 present, the description covers the essential behavior: what is returned and how the only argument affects the result. The output schema handles return-value detail, so no further elaboration is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this by explaining that dsid is an optional dataset ID and specifying the behavior when omitted ('returns all staff'). It adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare type/default fields, though it does not detail ID format or examples.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('GDEX staff contacts'), and adds the optional dataset filter. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_dataset_metadata or get_dataset_field, which target other resources.

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 states the context clearly: it returns staff contacts and can be scoped by passing a dsid, with the default behavior of returning all staff when dsid is omitted. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps this staff-contact responsibility, so exclusions are not necessary.

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