get_data_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions a fallback behavior ('or generated as a fallback') when no schema card snippet exists, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what the output structure looks like, whether network calls are made for snippet generation, potential failure modes for invalid archive ids, or rate limit behavior. For a read tool with no annotations, more transparency about the output/return value would help.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized—a clear opening sentence, a usage context sentence, and parameter explanations. No wasted words, everything earns its place. Minor deduction for not being front-loaded with the most critical behavior in the very first sentence, though the first sentence is quite informative.

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 an output schema (which covers return value explanation), 2 params, and moderate complexity. The description covers purpose, usage timing, and parameter semantics. The fallback behavior is disclosed. It's reasonably complete for a read-oriented access-tool. Slight deduction because the language parameter's accepted values aren't exhaustively listed and there's no mention of what happens if the archive id is invalid or if snippets are unavailable.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'id' is explained as 'Archive id from search_archives,' clarifying the data source, and 'language' is described as 'Optional filter for the snippet language' with examples. Since there is no output schema coverage and no enums constraining language values, the examples ('datasets', 's3fs', 'gcsfs') add meaningful value beyond the minimal schema definitions.

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 what the tool does: retrieves storage location and copy-paste code snippets for loading a dataset in one's own environment. The resource is clearly identified (dataset access), and the context—where to run analysis versus hosted notebook—adds specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like get_schema_card and list_archive_files by focusing on loading data locally.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this after finding a dataset when you want to run analysis where you are, rather than in a hosted notebook.' This clearly indicates when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclude other scenarios, which keeps it from a 5, but the context is strong and actionable.

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