french_associations_get_dataset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' and 'list' imply a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, required permissions, or any limits/pagination. It gives basic intent but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees that would be expected without annotations.

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?

One concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and the description is easily scannable.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it takes, and what it returns (list of usable resources). It would benefit from mentioning error conditions or the nature of 'usable resources', but is otherwise adequately complete.

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 already fully describes the single parameter as 'Dataset slug or id from data.gouv.fr.' (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond restating the identification mechanism; it does not provide additional format details or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'data.gouv.fr association-related dataset', specifies identification by slug or id, and mentions listing usable resources. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search datasets (which find datasets) and fetch source excerpt (which gets excerpts).

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 implies usage when you have a specific dataset identifier, but does not explicitly say 'use this when you already know the slug or id' or mention alternatives. It provides clear context (inspect a specific dataset) without exclusions, so no misleading guidance.

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