get_dataset_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'coverage' entails (e.g., temporal, geographical). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves operationally.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get information about the historical dataset') and adds specific details ('including last update and coverage'). There is zero wasted language, and every word earns its place by clarifying scope without redundancy.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. It specifies what information is retrieved, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, without annotations or more detailed behavioral context, it doesn't fully address operational aspects like error handling or data format, keeping it at an adequate but minimal level.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it appropriately doesn't discuss nonexistent inputs.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'information about the historical dataset', specifying what data is retrieved (last update and coverage). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_historical_data' (which likely returns actual data points) and 'get_stock_info' (which focuses on individual stocks). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_historical_data', 'get_market_overview', and 'get_stock_info', there's no indication of whether this tool is for metadata about datasets versus actual data retrieval, or any prerequisites for usage. It relies entirely on the agent to infer context from the name and description alone.

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