local_risk_france_get_dataset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It says 'Inspect' (implying read-only) and 'using the official public API' (suggesting no auth), but it doesn't explicitly confirm data is not modified, nor does it mention any potential limitations like response size or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose and method. There is no extraneous information, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately covers the core operation and context, but it could be slightly more complete by stating what the inspection returns (dataset metadata) or any prerequisites. However, for a simple get operation, it's mostly sufficient.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter ('Dataset slug or id') with 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning—it merely repeats the concept of identifying a dataset. Per the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and no extra value is provided.

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's function: to inspect a single data.gouv.fr dataset by slug or id. The verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'dataset' are specific, and the mention of 'slug or id' distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or get_sources.

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 clearly implies the tool is for direct lookup of a specific dataset by identifier, which differentiates it from search-oriented siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other use cases, so it stops short of full guidance.

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