get_dataset_columns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does add real content by distinguishing portal-sourced provenance from locally derived provenance, which is non-obvious. However, it never states that this is a read-only lookup, how large responses can get for wide datasets, or what happens on an unresolvable identifier.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, but it is an unstructured run-on list chained by 'plus' and 'and', which makes the main payload (columns) hard to separate from secondary metadata at a glance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does so fairly thoroughly across both schema-level and distribution-level metadata plus provenance. Missing are error/failure behavior and any note on response size for wide datasets.

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% and already explains accepted identifier forms (dataset_id, Socrata 4x4, ArcGIS item id, URL). The description adds no additional meaning about the single dataset argument, so the schema does all 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 resource (columns/fields for one dataset) and enumerates the payload: names, types, descriptions, distributions, license, publisher, extent, provenance. It is a noun-phrase inventory rather than a verb-first statement, and it does not name or differentiate itself from sibling tools such as search_datasets or check_source.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The only routing hint ('dataset_id from search_datasets') lives in the schema, not the description, and nothing tells the agent how this differs from check_source or find_sources.

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