Get a Realia dataset

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it explicitly states that the file is not public, that only schema and sample are returned, and that coin information is included when present. This is useful for setting agent expectations without contradicting the 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?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then immediately clarifies critical constraints about the file and what is returned.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values, and it already covers the key non-obvious behavior: the file itself is not public, only schema and sample are returned, and coin information is included when available. For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter dataset_id is already fully documented in the schema, including its source from search_datasets. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but that is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Read') with a clear resource ('one dataset') and explicitly defines the scope: every column with type and description, one sample row, and any coin launched on it. It also distinguishes itself by clarifying that it returns only the schema and sample, not the file, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_coin and search_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 implies this is the tool to use when you need the full schema/sample for one specific dataset, and the input schema says the ID comes from search_datasets. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or name exclusion conditions, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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