dataset_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the shape of the return content (counts, ranges, coverage, freeze), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether the call is cheap, cached, side-effect free, or how large the response is. For a zero-parameter read tool the risk is low, but the disclosure is still thin.

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?

Two short sentences, the content inventory first and the usage cue second, with no filler. The phrase 'the narrative freeze' is domain jargon left unexplained, which slightly blunts an otherwise tight statement.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what comes back, and it does list the returned fields. It is sufficient to call the tool correctly, though it could say more about the scale or freshness of the metadata.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description instead spends its words describing the payload, which is the right use of the space.

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?

States a specific resource (this dataset) and enumerates the concrete content it reports: row counts, date ranges, narrative coverage, and the narrative freeze. It is clearly the metadata/overview tool rather than a data-query tool like search_narratives or count_narratives, though it never explicitly names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

'Call first when unsure about coverage' gives a clear triggering condition and implies priority ordering relative to the other tools. It stops short of naming which alternative to use once coverage is known, so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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