Get OCC GIS dataset details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the returned content and the exact/partial matching behavior, which is useful. However, it does not mention how ambiguous partial matches are handled (e.g., multiple matches, error vs. arbitrary selection), nor any potential side effects or permissions, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and key return details without redundancy or filler. Every clause contributes useful information, and it 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, matching behavior, and enumerates the returned information. The only notable omission is clarifying behavior when a partial title matches multiple datasets, but this does not severely undermine usability.

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 fully describes the 'title' parameter with examples and the note about distinctive substrings. The tool description adds 'exact or partial title match', but this largely restates the schema's own description. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb+resource structure ('Get full details for one dataset on the OCC GIS hub') and clearly enumerates the return contents (distributions, spatial extent, license text). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on a single dataset found by title, contrasting with list_datasets.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need full details of one dataset found by exact or partial title match. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous and implies a targeted lookup rather than listing or querying.

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