Get Dataset Metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns (metadata fields), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention error conditions, auth needs, or any caveats. The 'get' verb hints at safety, but it is not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently combines purpose, output contents, and usage context without any filler or repetition.

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 a single simple parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states what is returned (field definitions, schema, publisher info, record count) and when to use it. It does not detail error responses or output format, but for a metadata retrieval tool, this is adequate.

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?

The schema provides only a required dataset_id of type string with 0% description coverage. The description adds minimal context by saying 'for a specific dataset,' but it does not explain how the ID maps to the resource, where to find it, or its expected format. The description does not compensate sufficiently for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed metadata for a specific dataset, listing the types of metadata (field definitions, schema, publisher info, record count). This stands out from siblings like get_datasets (likely a listing) and get_records (querying records), making the purpose immediate 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 gives clear context for when to use: 'Use this to understand a dataset's structure before querying records.' This implies a workflow and differentiates from get_records, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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