describe_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. It discloses the implicit non-mutating, non-map-changing behavior ('without adding it to a map') and enumerates the returned metadata fields. It doesn't state whether it works on local vs remote datasets or error behavior, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'describe'.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence; the resource, the operation, and the output fields are packed efficiently with no wasted words.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still names the key fields. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is essentially complete; it could note scope limitations (local vs remote) but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and only one parameter exists, so schema does the heavy lifting (baseline 3 for high coverage). However the description adds value by framing 'path' as 'any dataset by path', signaling the parameter accepts arbitrary dataset paths, slightly above baseline. No param = 4 floor context; with 1 param this is a fair 4.

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?

Specific verb (describe) + resource (dataset) + the exact information returned (type, geometry, CRS, extent, fields, row count). The 'without adding it to a map' clause sharply distinguishes it from add_layer and get_layer_info in the sibling set.

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?

Clear context: it describes a dataset by path. The 'without adding it to a map' scoping implies this is the right tool when you don't want to load a layer, which differentiates from get_layer_info/add_layer. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so not a 5.

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