get_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the authoritative-vs-inferred provenance distinction and the fact that it also enumerates the dataset's resources. It stops short of describing pagination or result size behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the primary output (columns) front-loaded before the provenance parenthetical and the side-effect note. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description still supplies the provenance semantics an agent needs to interpret results. The remaining gap is when-to-use routing relative to the two siblings.

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 dataset_id and resource_id are already documented, including the pointer back to search_datasets and the single-resource shortcut. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline, which is the expected 3 when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it describes a resource's columns and explains provenance semantics (DataStore metadata vs inferred_from_file). It also notes a secondary function, listing the dataset's resources. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_datasets or query, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for get_schema versus query or search_datasets, nor any prerequisites such as needing a dataset_id from search_datasets first. Usage is only faintly implied by the description of what it returns.

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