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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: output mirrors the public REST API /v1 and long lists are shortened, which is a truncation caveat an agent would otherwise not know. It does not say what happens on an invalid id or unknown param key, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the id source stated first and the alternative-tool rule last. Slightly clipped grammar ("Any dataset by id from search_datasets") costs a point but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description correctly limits itself to the truncation caveat and the REST API equivalence. For a 2-parameter catch-all tool this is nearly complete; only error behavior for bad ids or unrecognized param keys is left unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns an upgrade: it tells the agent that the free-form `params` object's valid keys are documented in search_datasets output rather than in this schema, which is the single most useful piece of semantics for a schema with additionalProperties and no enumerated param keys.

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 the tool fetches any dataset by id, with the id space enumerated in the schema, and explicitly positions itself as the general-purpose counterpart to the 22 dedicated sibling tools. It is slightly fragmentary ("Any dataset by id from search_datasets") rather than a clean verb+resource sentence, but an agent can still tell exactly what it retrieves and how it differs from siblings.

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?

"Prefer the dedicated tools when one fits" gives an explicit fallback rule for a catch-all tool, which is the crucial routing decision here. It also points to search_datasets as the source of valid ids and params. What it lacks is any concrete mapping of which dataset ids correspond to which dedicated tools, so the agent must infer 'fits' on its own.

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