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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope detail about the full record and distribution licensing, but does not disclose behavior like output size, pagination, or error cases. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The trailing 'norm.' is an unnecessary artifact that adds no value, slightly reducing structural quality.

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 get-by-id read tool, the description conveys what the tool returns and when to use it. It is missing any explanation of the lang parameter, but the overall call is straightforward and the output schema absence is mitigated by the explicit field enumeration.

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 50%: dataset_id is well documented in the schema, but lang has no schema description and the tool description does not mention lang at all. The description adds no parameter-level meaning to compensate for the undocumented optional parameter.

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 and resource: 'Show one dataset's full record', and enumerates the contents (contact, coverage, every distribution with licence and download address). This clearly distinguishes it from listing/search siblings and from the narrower get_dataset_distributions.

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 phrase 'use before reuse' gives clear contextual guidance on when to call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is evident.

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