get_related_datasets_v1_datasets__provider___dataset__related_ge

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses multiple behavioral traits: it combines three signals, caches results in Redis, provides categories, and degrades gracefully when Neo4j is unavailable. It does not mention exact response structure or error handling, but the provided details are substantial.

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 reasonably concise, uses section headers for categories, and integrates a fallback note. It could be slightly tighter, but it is well-organized and avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 description covers signal sources, caching, categories, and degradation, which is good for a listing tool. However, it lacks information about the output format (no output schema exists), pagination, or total count, leaving some gaps for an agent to know what to expect.

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 description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. Only the 'limit' parameter has a schema description; 'provider' and 'dataset' are not further explained, leaving the agent to infer from the path template. Schema coverage is 33% and the description does not compensate.

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 the tool retrieves related datasets using a unified multi-signal scoring approach, combining pgvector, join suggestions, and Neo4j graph signals. It specifies categories of relatedness (joinable, similar) and mentions caching, providing a specific and distinctive purpose among sibling tools.

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 notes the endpoint is public and mentions graceful degradation when Neo4j is unavailable, but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_related_v1_graph... or list_joinable, nor does it provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives.

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