get_eu_dataset_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information', but doesn't mention aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is concise and well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. It uses two sentences efficiently, though the second sentence could be more front-loaded. There's no unnecessary verbosity, making it easy to parse.

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 the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values, which is appropriate. However, with no annotations and a simple parameter, the description provides basic purpose and parameter context but lacks behavioral details like error cases or usage prerequisites. It's minimally complete but could be more informative for an agent.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it specifies that dataset_id is 'from search results', which provides context not in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive. The baseline is 3 since the schema covers the parameter structure, but the description adds some value.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific EU Open Data dataset', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dataset_info' or 'query_eu_data', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_eu_datasets' or 'query_eu_data'. It mentions the dataset_id is 'from search results', implying a prerequisite, but doesn't clarify the relationship or usage context compared to siblings.

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