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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (format, licence, download and access address), which goes beyond the annotation. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful behavioral context about the output content.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the action and output. The trailing 'norm.' is cryptic and adds no value, but it does not detract much from overall efficiency. It is appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return structure. It lists some returned attributes but omits details like whether results are paginated or how the lang parameter affects the response. It is adequate for a simple listing tool, but lacks explanation of the optional parameter and exact output shape.

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 only 50% (only dataset_id is described). The description does not mention either parameter, leaving the optional 'lang' parameter entirely unexplained. With moderate coverage, the description should compensate for missing parameter details, but it does not. This is a clear gap.

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 action ('List a dataset's distributions') and specifies the content (format, licence, download and access address). It also gives a concrete use case ('where do I get the data'). While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the verb and resource are distinct and unambiguous.

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 provides a clear contextual trigger: 'use for «where do I get the data»'. This guides the agent on when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use case is specific enough to differentiate from other i14y tools like i14y.get_dataset.

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