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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds relevant context beyond them: the data source (data.ksh.hu) and that no authentication is required. It does not cover rate limits or potential delays, but for a read-only metadata endpoint that is a minor 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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then packs the workflow, return contents, source, and auth status without wasted words. Every clause 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?

With one documented parameter and an output schema present, the description fully covers the call context: what the input is, where it comes from, what the output contains, why it is needed, and what prerequisites exist. No missing information would prevent an agent from using the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the dataset_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including its source and an example UUID. The tool description merely repeats that dataset_id comes from dataset_search, so it adds little meaning beyond the schema itself.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource ('Get full metadata for one KSH dataset') and enumerates the returned content (title, description, distribution list with IDs, formats, URLs, coverage, license). It also names the two sibling tools, making it completely distinguishable from dataset_search and dataset_data.

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 explicitly routes the workflow: dataset_id comes from hungary-ksh.dataset_search, and this metadata is 'needed before calling hungary-ksh.dataset_data'. This gives the agent clear when-to-use guidance and the exact alternative/companion tools, leaving no ambiguity about where it fits.

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