singapore_inspect_dataset

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lowered. The description still adds real behavioral value by stating the result is 'live' metadata and warning that field IDs may be internal and must be mapped via columnMetadata.map/metaMapping — a non-obvious caveat an agent would otherwise trip on.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the caveat follows. Efficient, though the field-mapping sentence is dense enough that it slightly blurs the boundary between the two ideas.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 4-parameter introspection tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves pagination (fields_limit/offset) and the include_raw toggle unexplained, which is a meaningful gap.

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 0% and the description explains none of the four parameters: the required dataset_id pattern, include_raw, or the fields_limit/fields_offset pagination pair are all undocumented. The only param-adjacent hint concerns field naming, not the actual inputs, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get live dataset metadata, schema, format, coverage and last update'), so the agent knows it retrieves dataset introspection rather than data rows. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like singapore_lookup_dataset or singapore_query_dataset, leaving that routing to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: this is the metadata-inspection step before querying, and the trailing note about using metaMapping names 'for datastore filters' hints at a downstream purpose. No when-not condition or named alternative (lookup_dataset, query_dataset) is given.

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