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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it names the underlying source ('open.canada.ca CKAN Action API') and explicitly states 'no auth required'. This is exactly the kind of auth/source context an agent needs before calling, so the description adds value beyond the structured annotations.

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 with zero wasted words. The action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence compactly delivers the data source and auth requirement. 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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only detail tool with an output schema present, the description covers the purpose, the id requirement, the specific returned fields, the data source, and the auth requirement. Nothing an agent needs in order to select or call this tool correctly is missing.

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%, with the 'id' parameter fully described as 'Open Canada dataset UUID or URL slug (e.g. from dataset_search results)'. The description only says 'by id', which adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate with additional parameter detail.

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: 'Get full metadata for one Government of Canada open dataset by id', and then enumerates the exact fields returned (title, notes, organization, subjects, keywords, license, jurisdiction, and the full resource list). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search tool, which finds datasets, and from reference tools like organization_list or subject_list.

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 clearly frames the usage context: this is for retrieving detailed metadata for a single dataset identified by an id. It implicitly contrasts with the search sibling (open-canada.datasets.search) by saying 'one dataset by id', but it does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it. Thus it has clear context but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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