describe_copernicus_dataset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does state the tool is an informational describe operation returning dataset metadata. However, it omits output format, whether any auth/availability constraints apply, and error/edge-case behavior, leaving the behavioral contract incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the specific verb and resource. The 'before choosing a subset' clause adds workflow guidance without bloat.

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?

For a one-parameter metadata inspection, the description covers what will be returned at a high level and when to call it. It falls short of fully complete because it does not tell an agent where dataset_id originates (e.g., search_copernicus_datasets) or what the response structure will be, though the absence of an output schema lowers that burden.

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 sole required parameter dataset_id is not mentioned in the description; 'a Copernicus Marine dataset' only implicitly points at it. With 0% schema coverage, the description should state what dataset_id looks like or where it comes from, but it does not.

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 identifies a clear subject ('a Copernicus Marine dataset') and a specific set of metadata outputs (variables, units, coverage, version, DOI), with 'Describe' as the verb. This distinguishes it from sibling subset_copernicus_dataset, and from search_copernicus_datasets which would be find/list rather than inspect.

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 phrase 'before choosing a subset' explicitly situates the tool in the workflow before subset_copernicus_dataset, telling an agent when to invoke it. It does not name search_copernicus_datasets as the way to obtain dataset_id or state when not to use the describe tool.

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